# Planning Commission Meeting - February 12, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · February 12, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/756 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/756?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-02-12 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 29,991 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 12, 2009, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding. The meeting addressed two agenda items, resulting in one approval and one denial: the James Motor Company Property amendment was approved, while a proposed text amendment concerning Dwelling Unit and Extended Stay Hotel definitions was denied. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission conducted 9 motions and votes and heard 6 public comments across the two items of business. ## Attendance The following members were recorded for the Commission meeting on February 12, 2009. **Present:** - Randall Vaughn - Neill Day *(arrived late)* - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - Joan Whitman *(arrived late)* - Mike Cravens - Patrick Brewer **Absent:** - Ed Holmes - Frank Penn Nine members were present in total, though Neill Day and Joan Whitman arrived after the meeting had begun. Ed Holmes and Frank Penn were absent from the meeting entirely. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions during the February 12, 2009 meeting: - **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 0:42]: Mike Owens moved, Patrick Brewer seconded, to approve the minutes from December 11, 2008; December 18, 2008; and January 15, 2009. The motion passed 7–0 by voice vote. - **PLAN 2008-71P – Hampton Springs** [timestamp: 1:52]: Mike Cravens moved, Mike Owens seconded, to postpone this item to March 12, 2009. The motion passed 7–0 by voice vote. - **PLAN 2008-76F – Bogie Estate, Lot 1** [timestamp: 3:01]: Mike Owens moved, Carolyn Richardson seconded, to postpone this item to March 12, 2009. The motion passed 7–0 by voice vote. - **PLAN 2007-239F and PLAN 2007-241F – Gess Property, Units 6-A and 6-C** [timestamp: 4:03]: Marie Copeland moved, Mike Cravens seconded, to postpone both items to March 12, 2009. The motion passed 7–0 by voice vote. - **DP 2008-89 – Townhouses of Lexington (Regency Point) (AMD)** [timestamp: 5:40]: Carolyn Richardson moved, Joan Whitman seconded, to approve the withdrawal of this item. The motion passed 8–0 by voice vote. - **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 11:34]: Mike Owens moved, Carolyn Richardson seconded, to approve all consent agenda items. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote. - **PLAN 2009-13F – James Motor Company Property (AMD.)** [timestamp: 20:21]: Mike Cravens moved, Carolyn Richardson seconded, to approve this item with conditions, including the addition of a 20-foot building line along Lot 2, and with a waiver granted. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote. - **ZOTA 2009-1** [timestamp: 1:39:59]: Lynn Roche-Phillips moved to postpone this item to March 26, 2009. The motion passed 9–0 by voice vote. - **ZOTA 2009-2 – Text Amendment Regarding Dwelling Unit and Extended Stay Hotel Definitions** [timestamp: 3:24:46]: Lynn Roche-Phillips moved to disapprove this text amendment, citing the need for more time to evaluate the proposal. The motion to disapprove passed 8–1 by voice vote, with Mike Owens casting the sole dissenting vote. ## Public Comment Six members of the public addressed the Commission regarding ZOTA 2009-2, a proposed zoning text amendment, with the majority speaking in opposition. [timestamp: 1:54:39] - **Knox Van Naughel** spoke in support of ZOTA 2009-2, arguing that the text amendment strikes a balance between promoting tourism and protecting property rights, and that it would encourage stability in rural and residential areas. [timestamp: 1:54:39] - **Tony Hancock** spoke in opposition, describing firsthand disruptions caused by a neighboring property being operated as a hotel. He raised specific concerns about safety impacts on his farm operations resulting from the neighboring property's use. [timestamp: 1:57:00] - **Dick Murphy** also opposed the amendment, contending that it is unnecessary and that the underlying conflict is a neighborhood dispute that would be better resolved through mediation rather than a zoning regulation change. [timestamp: 2:08:14] - **Paul Bracken** expressed concern that the amendment would effectively force him to sell his home, which he currently rents to tourists. He proposed a licensing process as an alternative approach to regulating short-term rentals rather than an outright text amendment. [timestamp: 2:42:09] - **Kate Savage** criticized the amendment as unnecessary and voiced frustration that what she characterized as more pressing zoning issues in her neighborhood are not receiving attention from the Commission. [timestamp: 2:44:49] - **William Wharton** raised concerns about the amendment's potential effect on housing choice for residents, and suggested that existing landlord-tenant regulations could be used to address the issues motivating the proposed amendment rather than enacting new zoning language. [timestamp: 2:48:41] Overall, public comment reflected significant concern about the scope and necessity of ZOTA 2009-2, with opponents offering several alternative approaches — including mediation, licensing, and use of existing regulations — while one speaker expressed support for the amendment as a means of protecting residential and rural areas. ## Contested Items **ZOTA 2009-2: Text Amendment on Dwelling Unit and Extended Stay Hotel Definitions** The Commission took up a proposed text amendment — designated ZOTA 2009-2 — that would revise the definitions of "dwelling unit" and "extended stay hotel" in the local zoning code. The item generated significant opposition and prompted heated discussion during the meeting. Property owners and community members spoke against the amendment, raising concerns about its potential impact on property rights and on tourism. The nature of the disagreement centered on how the revised definitions would affect existing properties and businesses operating under the current regulatory framework, with opponents suggesting the changes could restrict or otherwise negatively alter how certain properties are used or classified. The structured record does not specify the names of individual speakers, the precise vote count, or the final outcome of the Commission's deliberations on this item. ## JAMES MOTOR COMPANY PROPERTY (AMD.) **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2009-13F [timestamp: 12:48] The Commission took up discussion of an amendment related to the James Motor Company property. The item centered on a proposal to subdivide one existing lot into two lots, along with a request for a waiver concerning sewer line bonding requirements. Key speakers on this item included **Tom Martin** and **Rena Wiseman**, who participated in presenting and discussing the proposal before the Commission. The Commission considered both elements of the request — the lot subdivision and the sewer line bonding waiver — and deliberated on the conditions under which approval would be appropriate. No significant unresolved objections are noted in the record. The item was ultimately **approved with conditions**. ## Text Amendment on Dwelling Unit and Extended Stay Hotel Definitions [timestamp: 1:40:33] The Commission considered **ZOTA 2009-2**, a proposed text amendment to change definitions related to dwelling units and extended stay hotels. Key speakers on this item included **Traci Wade**, **Dick Murphy**, and **Tony Hancock**. The discussion centered on the implications of revising these definitions within the zoning ordinance, with commissioners and participants raising concerns about the potential impact the changes could have and whether sufficient evaluation had been conducted before moving forward. After deliberation, the Commission ultimately **denied** the amendment, citing the need for further review and evaluation before any changes to the dwelling unit and extended stay hotel definitions could be approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from December 11, 2008; December 18, 2008; and January 15, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-71P** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS to March 12, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-76F** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1 to March 12, 2009 - **PLAN 2007-239F and PLAN 2007-241F** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PLAN 2007-239F and PLAN 2007-241F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 6-A and 6-C to March 12, 2009 - **DP 2008-89** — withdrawn (8-0): Withdrawal of DP 2008-89: TOWNHOUSES OF LEXINGTON (REGENCY POINT) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLAN 2009-13F** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLAN 2009-13F: JAMES MOTOR COMPANY PROPERTY (AMD.) with conditions and waiver - **ZOTA 2009-1** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of ZOTA 2009-1 to March 26, 2009 - **ZOTA 2009-2** — failed (8-1): Disapproval of ZOTA 2009-2: Text amendment regarding dwelling unit and extended stay hotel definitions --- ## Full transcript Uh, review the minutes of December 11th, uh, 18, and January 15th of 2009. Um, please acknowledge any, um, corrections, additions, revisions to those minutes. Those are the minutes for December 11th and December 18th, 2008, and January 15th, 2009. If there are no corrections, uh, the Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the minutes. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the minutes from December 11th, December 18th, and January 15th, 2009. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Minutes accepted. Thank you. At this time, uh, the Commission will entertain any requests for postponement or withdrawal. Any requests for po- postponement or withdrawal? Sorry. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, first item on the, uh, today's agenda is the plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, request a one-month postponement to the March 12th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Um, Mr. Salih, is that correct, March 12th for one month? Yes, sir. That's your next meeting for subdivision items. Thank you, sir. Um, we have a request for a one-month postponement of Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, for property located at 4574 Harrisburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement of 2008-71P 'til next month. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on your agenda, top of page two, under Final Subdivision Plans, Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to March 12th. Thank you, sir. We have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate Lot 1, for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of, uh, Plan 2008-76F until March 12th, 2009. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. And the next two items are both within the guest property. Um, I'd like to take 'em together, if that's okay. Certainly. Plans 2007-239F and 2007-241F, Guest Property Unit 6A and 6C, request a one-month postponement to March 12th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2007-3239F, Guest Property Unit 6A, as well as, uh, Guest Pro- uh, 2007-241F, Guest Property Unit C, for both properties located at, on William Way. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we, um, accept his proposal, uh, his pro- postponement, excuse me, for Plan 2007-239F and Plan 2007-241F. Second. We have a motion and second, uh, for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Are there any other requests for postponement or withdrawal? Mkay. Staff, we, do we have any from the staff? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I could direct your attention to page 10 of your agenda, Item D, TP2008-89 Townhouses of Lexington, Regency Point Amended, we have received an email request from that applicant, asking that that plan be withdrawn. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, as noted by staff, we have, staff has received, via email, a request from the applicant to withdraw DP2008-89. Uh, at this time, uh, the Chair will entertain a motion from the Commission. Mr., Mr. Chairman, I, um, uh, move that DP2008-89 be withdrawn. Second. We have a motion and a second, uh, to withdraw this application. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this time, we will move into our land subdivision items, and at this time, um, we do have a consent agenda- ... uh, before us, and there are a number of applications on that consent agenda. I will turn it over to Mr. Sallee to, uh, review the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are currently 11 items on your consent agenda this afternoon. The first of which appears on your regular meeting agenda on page three, item D. This is plan 2009-09F, final record plat for Tuscany Unit 4F. All of these plans have been recommended either for approval or reapproval by your subdivision committee. The next item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, page three, item E, plan 2009-10F, final record plat for Beaumont Farm, Unit 2C, Section 2, amended. This is for property at 3294 Snaffle Road. The next item appears on page three, item F, plan 2009-11F, an amended final record plat for Providence Place Lot 2 and Interstate Service Center Unit 6, Lot 2B. This is for property located east of Newtown Pike and north of Stanton Way. The next item appears on page four, item H of your meeting agenda. This is plan 2009-14F, Lexington Fayette Urban County Government. This is a final record plat to subdivide property at 138 Montmellan Street. There are four items recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. All involve portions of Denton Farm Incorporated. The first item appears on page five, item I. That is for Unit 3A and Lots 31 through 34, amended, of that subdivision. The next item appears on page six, item J, plan 2008-14F. That's Unit 3B, Lots 27 through 30, amended. The next item is also the next item on your agenda, page six, item K, plan 2008-15F. That involves Unit 4A, Lots 19 and 20, and also 23 through 26, amended. Finally on page six, item L, plan 2008-16F, Denton Farm, Unit 4B, Lots 12 through 18 and Lots 21 and 22, amended. All four of these plats involve property located on Weston Park and Branham Park. These are immediately west of Richmond Road. There are three final development plans also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page nine, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-07, Manchester Development LLC. This is an amended final record plat for property at 855 through 941 Manchester Street. The next item of... is the next item on your meeting agenda, page nine, item B, DP 2009-08, Newtown Springs, Lot Nine, amended. This is for property at 1400 Newtown Pike. The final item on your consent agenda is on page 10, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-09, Merrick Place, also known as Merrick Inn and Old Town Property. This is an amended final development plan for property at 3380 Yates Creek Road. Mr. Chairman, all of these items can be considered for approval on your consent agenda unless a commission member, or a member of the audience, or an applicant would like these discussed further. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sallee. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to, uh, h- see, uh, any of these applications that have been presented on the consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the commission, are there any applications that members of the commission would like to have heard? Okay, seeing none- Mr. Chairman, if there are none, I believe one of the items requires an affidavit. Uh, that is page nine, item A on, uh, sign posting. Not sure if we received that or not. We have? Since y- we secure that applicat- uh, affidavit, I think we'll be fine. Okay. Uh, we do have the affidavit, is that correct? Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jimmy. Uh, you've heard a reading of the, uh, consent agenda, noting that we do have the affidated- affidavit on, uh, the application on page nine. Uh, the Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as read by Mr. Sallee. We have a motion and second to, uh, approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, we'll give the staff a moment to set up and, uh, we'll, uh, take our first, uh, first plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I may direct your attention, page four of your agenda item G, plan 2009-13F, James Motor Company property. This is an amended final record plat. We don't have our traveling microphone, I just noticed, so I will tell you that this property is located on Lake Park Road and Richmond Road, right at New Circle Road. Lake Park runs off of Richmond Road. James Motor and the Shell service station are located on Richmond Road. Ah. Here we go. I like this. Again, Richmond Road is up here with Lake Park Road and New Circle Road. This property is located right at that intersection with Richmond Road and New Circle Road. You may recall, we had a, an extended stay motel plan approved here. On further out the road, we had some additional townhouse development in that apartment complex, uh, down here at the end of the road. This is a proposal to subdivide this existing property into two parts. This area through here, the front lot, is over four acres. The rear lot, too, is over two acres, almost three, not quite three acres. There is an area in here of conditional zoning that relates to a previous zone change on the property. This plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee, recommended for approval. You can see that there are standard conditions for the sign-offs and we also have a request, item 11, of a waiver. It was a handout that you were given titled James Motor Company Property. I know you've got a lot of waivers, and they're all white, so, uh, it's the one that is titled James Motor Property. This waiver is a request of substantial completion so they may bond extending a sewer line to lot two, bond and then allow recording of the plat, so they can proceed with the recording and proceed with the financial arrangements on this property. There are a couple of issues facing how they would, might sewer this property, and that is, there's a line on lot one. Now, it's possible that it could be extended in this manner to lot two, approximately 150 feet or so, to serve the property. The other option that they have, there is an existing line in Lake Park Road, and it runs this way and serves areas here. And there, there would need to be... There's an existing manhole, but there would be a need to construct a manhole and then run a line to serve lot two, so that's the second option that they're looking at. This is the lower area of the lot, um, which there's some advantage to that option. The issue that they face right now is twofold. It's not just the options. It's that this area requires a development plan. There is no development plan. They will need to bring a final development plan before you before they can build. They would like to do that so they can set the finished floor elevation, locate the building on the lot with an end user, and then that will dictate to them the most appropriate way, whether a lateral, and perhaps they may even need something larger, but a lateral this way, or whether or not the manhole and a line from this direction would be most appropriate. And that is the basis for their waiver request today. You, uh, you can see from your report that staff has reviewed this and we have recommended approval of the waiver request. If you have any questions, be happy to answer them. I notice there's a, there's a requirement at the bottom of that waiver in terms of building permits. Is that- Yes, sir. It is. Or a certificate of occupancy? No CO would be issued on lot number two, and that, that's directly related to the fact they're gonna have to bring a final development plan to ever build on that lot. Okay. So there won't be an issue really until they bring that back before you and you approve a development. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any, uh, any further questions for Tom? Thank you. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Rena Wiseman here for James Motor Company. We are in agreement with, uh, the staff condition. There's one quick change I wanna, uh, note. I believe Tom Rory said that on number nine we need to delete after building line utility and screening easement, as those aren't on the previous plat. Okay. I would, but, I would, I would concur. I have met with Rory and that, we have reviewed the record plat, and it does not extend as far as we first thought, so I would- ... and we're in agreement with the condition on the wafers, uh, staff report about the certificate of occupancy. Again, just to reiterate, this is done for financing. There's currently a mortgage on the entire property. Uh, it is being refinanced, so there's gonna be a new lender on what is going to be lot one, which is, if you will, is the actual dealership. Lot two is a vacant lot, and this is really a no, a non-building plat, if you will, 'cause no construction can take place on this plat. The urgency of getting this recorded is we're supposed to close the refinancing on February 17th. And we have no guarantee from the lender about the interest rate, so we're trying to get closed so we can take advantage of the interest rate at this point. So unless you have any other questions, uh, we would ask you to approve the plat, uh, subject to the waiver of the construction of the sewer to serve lot one. And we are, uh, I think he said it, but we're furnishing a bond for the full amount of the sewer, and under one of the op- we're gonna furnish the bond in the amount of the most expensiv- expensive option. So there'll be more than adequate funds to secure that. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Uh, Tom, I wanna ask you real quick, uh, the wording on n- condition nine, if we- Mr. Chairman, I think I can address that. Okay. Thank you, Mr.- The, uh, change outlined by Ms. Wiseman would be fine with the staff. I think it should read, "Addition of 20-foot building line along lot two." So you can delete in two parts what you see on number nine. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this particular application? Okay, seeing none. Um, at this time, Commission, do you have any questions, comments? Is there a motion? M- Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'd like to move approval of plan 2009-13F, uh, changing number nine to the addition of 20-foot building line for lot two. I think that's how they said it, and also approving the, uh, waiver. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. ... and members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page six. And they're actually the next three plans on six and seven, and that's M, N, and P, are gonna be presented to you together. They are plan 2008-138F Meadow Oaks Unit 1A, plan 2008-139F Meadow Oaks Unit 1B, plan 2008-140F Meadow Oaks Unit 1C. These record plaids have been brought back before you today to discuss a waiver. And I wanna orient you where you are. I put this up so you can see the big picture, because these are in order, roughly. But this is the area in Meadow Oaks. Now, here's the Blackford Property Development, which is located here. Here's the Greenbrier Golf Course, located here. Here is the Justice Property and Winchester Road. Here we have the Man-O-War frontage for the Meadow Oaks property. This is the first area that's been platted on this property. And again, it runs from Feliciano Way back into this area here. And the plaids can show you the close up of that view. Here's the street, the lotting. It enters into this little s- square area of townhouse development. This is the HOA space in the greenway that adjoins this property. The applicant brought this back before you to request a waiver to allow them, again, of substantial completion, as you can see in another one of your waiver reports, so that they may bond the sidewalks along these private streets. The sub-regs allow bonding of the final course of asphalt on a private street. O- on a public street, they do allow the bonding of the sidewalks. However, that's not the case in a private street, so they always have to request a waiver in order to bond these improvements. And in this case, they are asking to bond the entire sidewalk system. At this time, it's approximately 5,000 linear feet of sidewalk. Now staff has reviewed this, and you can see in the report, we have recommended approval of the waiver. We have asked that there be a requirement on 1A and 1B. That's here in this unit, and we ask that the sidewalk construction be tied to the apron construction for the driveways. And this is a requirement that will ensure that they will build the sidewalks 'cause otherwise, no certificate of occupancy could be issued. And so they will issue a bond to both the Homeowners Association and to the city, and we feel that that protection should be adequate in this case. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, I did have one quick question. I was trying to follow, the waiver has 1A, 1B, 1C. Yes, sir. And I think you pointed out that's o- plan 1A, 1B- A- ... that we're looking at? Did I miss C? I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Uh, we have 1A, 1B, and 1C. Oh, thank you. We do have three- Thank you. ... but we're only asking that the, the apron and the COs be tied to where there are buildable lots. The, this is a homeowner's lot, and there's actually going to create a homeowner's lot here, but this is the greenway, so there won't be any aprons there, so therefore, no way to, to tie the sidewalks in, but- Thank you, sir. ... we're comfortable that we can still get the sidewalks. Okay, thank you. Uh, are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Um, Rory... Twice now. I won't touch it again. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Um, we are in agreement with, uh, staff's, um, added conditions for the note, and, um, I request approval, answer any questions if you have them. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Are there any questions for Mr. Kaley? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay, thank you. Um, staff, you have anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. You're good, okay. All right, at this time, we'll turn it over to the commission for any questions, comments- Motion to approve. ... motion. Mr. Chairman, uh, I'd like to move approval of the waiver for Plan 2008-138F Unit 1A, Plan 2008-139F Unit 1B, and Plan 2008-140F Unit 1C. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the amends, could I clarify whether or not that included the additional conditions? Uh, yes, it did- Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Thank you, Rory. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is immediate below Meadow Oaks on page seven, Item P, Plan 2008-169F Miller Street Properties. This is a final record plat that you just previously approved in December. Now, Miller Street is an area downtown. It runs between Second and Third near Jefferson. Uh, you originally saw a development plan on this. It's a townhouse development, and it proposes five lots along with a single family dwelling. When you saw this plan in December, you may recall they discussed an issue through here on the width of the sidewalk, and that there was a conflict with some water meters and some utility construction and that sort of thing, and they brought that. Well, why you have it here today before you is related to that issue and that you are being requested to approve a waiver on this property as well. And it relates, again, to the construction in this area. Due to the utility conflicts and the need to coordinate the work and then get the work done that the city requires on the street and the sidewalk, uh, they made a lot of progress, but then they got to a point where they were unable to complete the work. This was aggravated by an inability to, uh, procure asphalt as well. As you're aware, those plants shut down in the winter. So they have brought this plan back before you, uh, to request a, a re-, uh, excuse me, to request approval of a waiver allowing them to bond the final improvements. Now, it's my understanding that the amount is so small that there is, um, a possibility that the applicant can even write a check just to cover the amount 'cause it's a very small amount of work. And again, you have a waiver report. This one is this color to help, to help you find it. Again, titled Miller Street Properties. We have reviewed this. We have talked to the applicant and with engineering and staff has recommended approval to the waiver. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? 'Kay, is the petitioner here, huh? He is. Okay. David Dukamus for Miller Street Properties, LLC. Uh, thank you for, uh, uh, taking the time to, uh, help me with this. Uh, the commission has always been very helpful all the way through the process and, uh, the, everybody in planning has certainly been, uh, helpful in what I've found to be a very arcane, tortured process. It, if I could take just a second, I want to alert you to the fact that, um, as I see it, where it runs off the rails is inner city infill versus the subdivision plan. The overlay just doesn't work. 60 days later, I'm waiting to get substantial debt reduction on my project. I got people that wanna pay me that live there, and we're hung up about $1,300 worth of pavement. It was tough getting here and, um, once again, I really wanna thank you for all the good help, and, uh, it seems to me that everybody on the commission has understood the efficacy of the project from, uh, the start. And I just hope that, um, in the future, we can, uh, cause the, uh, coalescing that needs to happen down below planning to, uh, to become more, uh, smooth. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Dukamus. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? 'Kay, seeing none, um, Chair will turn it over to the commission, um, for any questions, comments. Motion? Yes, Ms. Phillips, you have a question? Tom, we're, we're, w- we're waiving the fact that we typically do not allow bonding- . ... of these final street improvements, so we're waiving the ordinance prohibition against bonding? You are allowing a bond to be posted, so you're waiving against substantial completion in essence to allow a bond to be posted in lieu of completing the improvements. Okay, so the words are substantial completion, so it's not, it's very close, but not fully completed. Exactly, yes ma'am. Okay. Apparently very close. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I can, um, also, we're not talking about the through street of Miller Street. We're talking about the, um, bonding the improvements that are left on the five on-street parking spaces that are being added to the right-of-way of Miller Street. I just wanted to make that clear. It is in the report, but I just wanted to get that- Right. ... out too. Thank you, Jimmy. Mm-kay. Any other questions, comments from the commission? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of plan 2008-169F, including the waiver as requested. Second. 'Kay, we have a motion and a second to approve and granting the waiver. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon. If you turn your page seven, item Q, plan 2004-226F, Higby Mill Reserve. This is a final record plot and the property is zoned R3. In total, it's 15.39 acres. They had created 22 lots on the property. At this time, they have 13 of those 22 lots recorded. You can see where they've been cross-hatched. Those lots have been recorded. They're coming back to ask for reapproval so that they can, um, complete the project. They have 11 conditions. On condition number 11, it said, "Review by technical committee prior to plan signature." This plan was approved in September of 2004 and technical committee saw it at the end of September of 2004. So, at this time, we can remove condition number 11 to be removed by, uh, to be reviewed by technical committee. ... with the last ten conditio- with the ten conditions. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Are there any questions for Cheryl at this moment? So you're saying we can delete condition 11 in this reapproval? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. Great. Thank you. Is petitioner present? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Jason Banks. I'm with Eagle Engineering, and, uh, we have looked at staff's comments and are in agreement with all of those and request approval. Thank you, Mr. Banks. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak to this application? Okay, seeing none. Um, commission, any questions for Mr. Banks? Comments? Thank you, sir. Okay, the chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move, uh, approval of Plan 2004-226F with, uh, ten conditions, uh, and deleting condition 11. Second. We have a motion and a second for reapproval, um, deleting condition 11. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon. The next item on the agenda is on page eight is item R Plan 2007-6F, Lochmere Estates Unit 1A and item S Plan 2007-7F, Lochmere Estates Unit 1B. Uh, these are final record plats that were originally approved in January of 2007. Uh, Unit 1A was approved with a sub- with a waiver of the subdivision regulations 4-7B, D for substantial completion. There is, uh, a sidewalk per, uh, pedestrian walkway that is in a public access easement throughout the perimeter of the property, as well as some private sidewalks to the interior that are served for residents of the development. The waiver was for only around 25% of the interior pedestrian easements. All of the public walkways to the, in the perimeter of the property have been installed. Um, you can see in the waiver report from 2007 for Lochmere 1A, and this is only for... The waiver was only for 1A, um, but that bond has been posted. Uh, 16 of the 18 lots for Unit 1A have already been recorded. The only two remaining lots are lots 19 and 42 up here. On 1B, a lot here in the middle, uh, Lot, Lot 40 on this plan, has been recorded. The rest of the lots are still to be recorded. The subdivision committee recommended approval of these originally subject to 16 conditions on both of them. Uh, the staff recommends reapproval as well as the reapproval of the waiver for Unit 1A, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for Chris? Okay. Petitioner. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the applicant. Uh, we are in agreement with the staff's recommendations and, uh, request approval, reapproval. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay, seeing none. Chair will turn it over to commission at this time for any questions or comments or motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-06, or reapproval, including the, uh, waiver as, uh, per the, the recommendation of staff for the reasons given. Okay. Uh, do you wanna include plan item S, I guess, in that motion? Unit 1B, you wanna include that as... If it's included. I'm sorry, I thought it was just a question. Um- Did I mess up the numbers? Excuse me. Well, let me, let me clarify. I thought I heard. It is for both Units 1A and 1B- Okay. Items R and items S. So, the waiver just applies to 1A? The... Yes, the... Only applies to 1A. That's correct. Okay. So yes, include Plan 2007-07F for 1B. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, if I could, uh, I guess turn the, uh, commission's attention to the back page of your agenda, we have an addendum for, uh, another land subdivision item. Like to go ahead and, uh, address, address that land subdivision item on our addendum? Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on the addendum of your agenda, page 14, we have an item. It is a final record plat for plan 2008-162F Denton Farms Incorporated Unit Three, Section A. This is the Denton Farm property located out on Richmond Road. The area in question, of course, the lake, the reservoir and the park are right across the street. And here we have the Denton Development all in this area. The plats that you saw previously are on in the back towards the single family area of development. This is the area that we're discussing on this plan. Here's Ellerslie Park, or Boulevard, Ellerslie Park Boulevard as it comes in the main entrance into the development. This is the townhouse area up in the front that has been under development for some time. You approved this particular plat in December to create this slotting pattern here with the townhouses. The preliminary subdivision plan and development plan that you have approved shows a continued street in this area and a cul-de-sac, and they've not brought that in to plat that as yet. And I believe it's my understanding there's still work to be done in that area. The plan has been brought back to you today to request a waiver. Uh, that waiver is to substantial completion to allow the construction or the bonding of a private sidewalk in lieu of construction. And the reason being, again, construction traffic and the damage and that, that can happen to these sidewalks, we hate to see them have to rebuild them and that sort of thing, and there's still considerable construction traffic going on in the area. So that's the, that's... And this area highlighted here, it's about 135 feet at the entrance. This is a pedestrian easement. This entire area was developed with easements. The street system is actually a private access easement. One of your all's approvals, by the way, included street trees in this area. So it, it has that feel of a, of another development, not so, um, isolated and, and just overbuilt. But again, it is this area where they're requesting to bond 130, uh, 135 feet of sidewalk. Staff has reviewed this request and recommended approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Tom? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? I'll just point out that the staff recommended that the surety be for both the LFUCG and the Homeowner Association, and we agree with that. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who want, would like to speak to this application? Okay, seeing none, the Chair will, uh, turn it over to the Commission for any further questions, comments, and/or emotion. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move approval of plan 2008-162F, or, or I guess the waiver for it. Is that what you're asking? Uh, I would say approval of the plan with conditions and granting the waiver, it looks like. Approval of the plan 2008-162F with the conditions and, uh, also the, uh, waiver. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. Um, all those in favor of, of the motion, please signify by saying "hi." Hi. All opposed, please say "no." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, um, let's see. What I'd like to do is, uh, if we could, uh, review the, um, release and call of bonds, uh, memo dated February 12th. Uh, if we could review that and then take action, possibly take a break before we get into the zoning items. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, um, call for the, uh, release and call of bonds in the memorandum dated February 12th from Ron Saint Clair to Chris King. We have a motion and a second to accept release and call of bonds. All those in favor, please signify by saying "aye." All oppose, please say "no." Motion carries. Thank you. What I'd like to do is, uh, take about a 10-minute break and then, uh, we will reconvene to, um, address our zoning items. Thank you. The sun just left its snow below my door. I can't hide beneath my sheets. I've read the words before, so now I know, the time has come again for me. And I'm feeling the same way all over again. Feeling the same way all over again. Singing the same lines all over again. No matter how much I pretend. Another day that I can't find my head. My feet don't look like they're my own. I try and find the floor below to stand. I hope I reach it once again. And I'm feeling the same way all over again. Feeling the same way all over again. Singing the same lines all over again. No matter how much I pretend. Oh. Oh. Hoo. Oh. So many times I wonder where I've gone, and how I found my way back in. I look around awhile for something lost. Maybe I'll find it in the end. And I'm feeling the same way all over again. Feeling the same way all over again. Singing the same lines all over again. No matter how much I pretend. Singing the same lines all over again. No matter how much I pretend. No matter how much I pretend. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Commission, our first zoning item for today's agenda is found on page 11 of your agenda, and it's also in your notebooks, which, um, should be behind tab four. This is a zone change request, MAR2009-1, requested by Caller Properties LLC. And this zone change request is from light industrial, which is the I-1 zone, to B3, the highway service business zone. The property is located at the northwest corner of Roje Drive and Nicholasville Road. And Roje Drive is, um, a public street, but extends to the west towards Mall Road, and connects to the now ex- the expansion of Fayette Mall, um, Fayette Commons. The existing use of the property is a car dealership, Manawarr Ford, and they are proposing to move to Jessamine County, so that leaves this property available for redevelopment. The, um, zoning in the area is mostly commercial, especially on the west side of Nicholasville Road with B6P to the north and to the west, I-1 to the south, um, also with B3 zoning further south towards, uh, Manawarr Boulevard, and then residential zoning across Nicholasville Road. And that residential zoning across Nicholasville Road on the east has a church, Central Baptist Church, and then a large multi-family development. ... the, um, proposed redevelopment for the subject property, um, for the development shows, development plan shows a commercial, uh, retail area and building, and then also a gr- a small grocery. The comprehensive plan for this locatio- or let me back up and show you just a photo of this location. Uh, an aerial, this is pointing to the south, south being at the top of the photo. Um, Fayette Mall, Dillard's, um, addition here at the base of the photograph. And, um, the subject property is towards the center of the photograph with the Man O' War Ford building in the middle and you can see, uh, cars parked on either side for display. This is a more recent photo from 2007 so it does show the redevelopment for the expansion of the mall including the, uh, cinema, uh, several restaurants and a re- and a s- cellular tower there too then Nicholasville Road, um, going from South to North at the top of- or the side of the photo. Also, just a ground level photo, Barb if you could put that up, of the building and existing use there. The comprehensive plan for this property does, uh, propose retail trade and personal services use which is the same land use or, uh, proposed for a very large area along Nicholasville Road, generally bound by Lexington Green to the North and Man O' War for- or Man O' War Boulevard to the South and then the railroad to the West and Nicholasville Road to the East. Also, in the general vicinity you have the residential land use recommendations across Nicholasville Road. The retail trade, uh, and personal service land use category does generally line up with business owning but when a B3 zone is, is requested the staff often recommends conditional zoning restrictions because there are several uses in that zoning category that don't really line up with the future proposed land use including hotels and motels, um, the adult related businesses and cocktail lounges, as well as some of the amusement uses and advertising signs. So the staff is recommending approval of this zone change to the B3 zone, although we are also recommending some conditional zoning restrictions that is prohibiting several uses on the property to make it more inline with the, um, land use recommend, recommended by the comprehensive plan. So the staff would say that this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, um, but it i- and it is also as restricted or as suggested to be restricted by the staff very similar to the restrictions that are in place on other property within this general vicinity. Uh, the, the staff also feels that conditional zoning restrictions are appropriate given that the residential and the church use directly across Nicholasville Road are in such close proximity. I would be happy to ans- actually one more item, the staff did meet with the applicant's representative since the January zoning committee meeting. They expressed some desire to eliminate a few of the conditional zoning restrictions that were recommended by the staff. At that time, we met with them and the staff does believe we can eliminate pawn shops from the list. They are, um, a conditional use in the B3 zone unless they were in place before a certain date. I believe it's in the 90s at some point. Uh, and the staff feels comfortable with the Board of Adjustment reviewing any application for a pawn shop at that location. But we do feel that the rest of the conditional zoning restrictions are appropriate for this location and would re- recommend, um, keeping the rest. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Are there any questions for Tracy? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is at the bottom of page 11 of your agenda. The CDP 2009-04, General Telephone Company of Kentucky, lot two. As Miss Wade explained, this is property that fronts here on Nicholasville Road and on Rojay Drive. This is the access easement from Fayette Mall here. They are proposing a 16,800 in square foot grocery and a 13,400 square foot retail building on the site. The traffic, uh, parking generator requires 104 spaces and they have 132 on this plan. Now this is a revised plan from the first submittal. The original submittal created a lot of concern about access and circulation on the site. You may recall, particularly in this area, when they proposed access here and then with these existing points and how traffic would utilize those and then how the internal circulation would be. This revised plan has gone a long way to addressing those concerns with a different layout on the parking. They have gone back to the existing access point here and even proposing to widen it a little bit, and this will allow the trucks that they anticipate going to the docking area to have, be able to gain access there. Staff is, is pleased with that. Again, as you are aware, we had a lot of concerns about this location- Uh, the, uh, discussions also centered on these two points, and there was considerable discussion. And in fact, as you look at your agenda, you'll see the Subdivision Committee recommended referral to the full commission because of these access issues, primarily. Uh, with this revised plan, the applicant has given us what is proposed to be a right-in only access point. They will continue to utilize this point, which lines up with the driveway access into the parking areas with the automobile dealership over here. And by doing this, this will relieve the impact from the stacking associated with Nicholasville Road. Again, your subdivision committee did recommend referral of this. The conditions that are on this plan are standard with the one issue, as you can see, discuss proposed access. Staff has, again, met with the applicant. They've submitted this plan. We've met with traffic engineering and we would be comfortable with 13 at this time being resolved. Proposed access. And again, I would emphasize this as a preliminary development plan, and you will see a final development plan on this property. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer 'em. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions? Uh, yes, Ms. Copeland? Mr. Martin, could you talk about the, uh, Nicholasville Road corner and that access to Fayette Mall? Do you have any- Mm-hmm. ... comments about that? Yes, ma'am. And this little proposed ... Yes, this is, uh, again, there was so much discussion about the access. One of the ideas that was floated is if it would at all be possible for a future access point from this property into Fayette Mall. And what they've shown us here is, should this become possible, and obviously it requires negotiation and work between two independent, uh, business parties, but they would be willing to provide that point in order to gain that access. But again, it's, it's proposed and, oh, it's hard to say if and when it, it may happen. Now, certainly it would benefit this property if it did happen. And it, uh, again, would be something that could be resolved also at the time of the final development plan, if it can be resolved. But right now, it's just a possibility. It is just a possibility. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Tom? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner. Chairman Vaughn, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners and, um, I'm here on behalf of Caller Properties. We are, uh, uh, in agreement with, uh, the recommendations on the zoning, uh, and, and for the, uh, uh, the reasons stated, uh, in the, uh, in the staff report. The, uh, one clarification, uh, uh, from Tracy's, uh, presentation, uh, I didn't just come in asking for pawn shops. We didn't, uh, uh, we don't envision, uh, a great need for pawn shops, but we wanna make the opportunity available to us if, if that's, uh, comes forth and that will be a, a conditional use, uh, review. Uh, but I had also requested, uh, cocktail lounges and nightclubs and the motel, hotel along with the, uh, really with the, uh, leniency on the, on the pawn shops. And I'm not gonna make a big fuss about that. That's a smaller argument, but if y'all are, uh, s- feeling gracious and, and wanna exclude those, I'd, I'd be happy for that. Uh, and then for the, uh, for the development plan, uh, the r- the resolve, uh, the proposed access, I, I think that was intended to resolve the access at the final development plan, and I'm agreeable to, to that. Uh, but I think we've, uh, hopefully addressed a lot of the access issues with making the, the first entrance in a, a, uh, an entrance only, uh, right in. Uh, and then, uh, leaving the existing access easement point, uh, where it is and then also, uh, making an opportunity to access Fayette Mall at some future date if that becomes available, so that gives the, uh, the users, uh, couple of alternatives other than coming down on, directly out onto Roget, so, uh, we've got three ins and two outs and a potential, uh, fourth and third, uh, in and out if the Fayette Mall, uh, opens up, so, uh, we're in agreement with the conditions and, and are asking for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Are there any questions, uh, for Mr. Barrett from the commission? Um, do you wanna hear from traffic? Uh, yeah. Uh, Mr. Neal, I guess, if you could grace the, grace the podium for us. So I take it the commission didn't have any questions for Mr. Barrett? Okay. Members of the commission, my name's Jeff Neal with Traffic Engineering and I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion, but I can field any questions you might have. Okay. I believe, uh, Ms. Phillips and Mr. Owens may have had a question for you. My question will be in regards to this first entrance, the right-in only. H- h- you know, how is it going to be built to keep it as a right-in only? And, you know, maybe that's not for you, but, but I don't know if it's you or Mr. Barrett, but... It'll, it'll certainly have to be narrowed and angled as we've done some of the other entrances around town. And our real objective here is to simplify the operation of this intersection here. Um, keeping that entrance coming out in the same spot just adds a lot more conflict points and keeps the same number of conflict points that we have there now. Uh, by doing this, it, it frees up, it takes some traffic off of the rest of Roget, Roget and allows cars to get in here rather easily and to get back out, hopefully back here. But the design will have to be narrow enough to keep the majority of people from doing the wrong thing, but we don't want to restrict it too much to where we, uh, start having a lot of tires and things like that run over the curbs. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? I don't know if this is better intended for, um, Mr. Hammonds. I wanted someone to provide some, uh, comparative data as to the, uh, traffic counts, traffic volume from Man O War Ford versus what's projected, uh, what's proposed to go on the site. Are we going to be increasing or decreasing traffic volume as a result of new development? Well, I guess fortunately or unfortunately, this development did not generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic study, and so we, there was no requirement to go out and do counts, and we do not have recent counts of this intersection either once the road connected through. We've got some old counts, but, um... Do you want to hear from Rob? Mr. Hammonds, can you come forward, I guess? Thank you, Jeff. Good afternoon. I'm Rob Hammonds, Senior Planner, Transportation Planning Section. Um, in the memo that you all received, if you look on the back, on the second page, you'll see the, uh, the existing trip generation, uh, which is up at the top, and then you'll, then you'll see the, the, the two, the proposed use trip generation and then what we do to, uh, as part of the trip generation assessment, we, we, uh, take the existing trips and deduct those from the overall trips because those were already there, so, you know, we were close in our total trips generated during the p.m. peak hour and the threshold, as according to 6:1, uh, article six of the zoning ordinance is 100 new trips inbound or outbound during the p.m. peak hour. So, um, it was, uh, it came under the threshold and, uh, uh, I, uh, discussed those issues with the, the applicant's consultant, and I brought this information to the technical committee and, uh, and, um, I did, you know, bring those issues forward and, uh, and was glad to see that they were doing that, uh, that quick right in there and to add to Jeff's comment on the geometrics of that right in, you know, with the, the more you, um, take that 90 degree curve out of the radius, uh, that's, that, uh, allows, uh, a travel speed to be able to turn in there, and that keeps people from backing up there, but back to the traffic counts that you accounts would... You wanna put that on the overhead? ... Good. And one thing to keep in mind, too, these, um, these, uh, Institute for Transportation Engineer, uh, chip, trip generation, uh, counts come from, uh, a lot of different studies, and in this case, when you look at these counts, uh, um, this came out of the seventh edition of the ITE manuals, and I think there were, there were, you know, there were probably, thinking there were 100 plus different studies they took these trip generation counts out of. But one thing to keep in mind, these are average trip rates and the standard deviation can, can fluctuate. So when you look at these, these are average trip rates. And one thing to keep in mind, too, with these, with these trip generation rates, this doesn't take into, um, consideration the internal capture, um, from other, um, people using, utilizing, going to other businesses on the same, in the same area. And, um, so, but these are the, the overall numbers and, um, and, um, if you have, um... Was there anything specific about the, the, um, existing versus these proposed? I mean, was it, was it the, um, the, the number that was just being close to the threshold that concerns you? Uh... Um, can you just walk us through that? How many, where on this chart does it show us, um, how many new trips will be generated? Okay, um- Is it 99? Uh, yeah, when you look at, um, when you look at, um, where it says trip generation assessment results, the, the, um, just a line up from there says total new trips generated. Existing land use versus... ... the proposed land use. And what you do is you, you, you, we took the supermarket and the shopping center. When you go to the far right, uh, you'll see, if you go down the column from PM, PM peak hour, then you have PM peak hour entering and exiting. We, uh, take the total from the proposed development and we subtract the, the, the existing land, the, the, the existing trips that's already happening there. And once again, those are average trips. It could be more or less during certain times of the day. And then your total trips came out to be 99 trips entering, 95 exiting, which is under the threshold. And, and when something like that happens, uh, um, as I stated before, I go to the, go to the technical committee and, and let the other planners know that, you know, that it's close to th- their threshold and to be cogni- cognizant of the fact that we need to make sure that we're getting those right-ins/right-outs and we have other ways to get in and out of that site. And I think they addressed that issue and they're still working on those, but that's pretty much the, the gist of it. Thank you, Rob. You're welcome. Ms. Copeland, you had a question? Yes. Would you say that, uh, Nicholasville Road is at capacity? Well, I, I would say at times it would be very close to capacity. If you've been out there, um, during the p-, you know, the afternoon, sometimes from 3:00 till 6:00, sometimes 6:30 or 7:00, uh, um, I wouldn't speculate that it's at full capacity, but I do know that, uh, you know, you're, you're approaching, you know, uh, reduced levels of service. But keep in mind too that reduced levels of service on a major arterial like this is, you know, it's par for the course to say and, you know, your major movements, um, they're reduced level of service and the minor movements, you're gonna, you're gonna have s- have, uh, reduced level of service in some cases. But, but these are during the PM peak hour that we were mainly looking at, even though we have AM, uh, peak hours. One thing to keep in mind is with retail, some of that retail traffic, a lot of times it won't even, it may not even, uh, impact the 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak hour period if it's specialty retail. And that's some of the details that, that you, you know, we, we didn't have. We used the, the, um, the, um, land use code over here. You'll see, uh, shopping center 820, which is like 42.92, uh, trips per 1,000 square foot. But, uh, so to answer your question, I don't think that, um... I can't speculate if it's at full capacity. It's very busy, uh, in the PM peak hour and it's busy going inbound and outbound, uh, just from observing the traffic. But the good thing is, is all that traffic, they, they've got a, a auxiliary, auxiliary lane to, to get in, to get ou- out of the main travel flow and turn into this site, so a lot of times that's... it doesn't seem to be a problem. I mean, just from out there driving and looking at the, the technical aspects of it. Is there an auxiliary lane for... Well, the turn lane. The turn lane is what I'm referring to, yes. The, uh, turn lane, uh, going into, uh, turning off of Nicholasville onto Road J. So you're saying that this property will only add 99 more peak hour enterings and exitings sort of? Yeah. That... Uh, yeah. No, well, according to the industry standard ITE traffic, uh, trip generation, uh, counts, yes, that's what we're saying. And that there is capacity? The, uh... Well, the capacity, um- On Nicholasville Road? Yes. Okay. And, um, uh, the good thing is that we do have that turn lane into Road J coming southbound, so, uh, the cars will get out of that traff- that, uh, out of the travel stream too, so... And you did say to the staff that, or to someone, um, that you recommended that there be a traffic study, didn't you? From up here. Well, when I recommended the traffic study, as I do with most- This? For this, for, for any, any, uh, proposed development that comes in close to the 100 threshold, a lot of times I will recommend to the applicant to, you know, it might be a good idea to have a traffic study just to better explain some of the details, but they're not required to. But you meant this traffic study? This development. I mean, but when you recommended a traffic study, did you recommend this type of traffic study that we're looking at right now? Oh, this, what this is is when, when a applicant comes in and they're proposing a certain type of land use and, um, you know, if it's a certain amount of square footage, we'll look at the trip generation to see if they are required by 61A, which is to see if they, if they exceed the threshold. And when they're close, I usually recommend one just to help show you all on the technical committees some of the details of how the traffic's going to get in and out of there. And, uh, and, um, you know, and Mr. Barrett and, um, the, the staff was aware of that and so, w- you know, when I bring that issue forward, it's more or less to get people's attention to make sure that they get the right-ins/right-outs and, and check the other little details on the site plan. So it's just a general recommendation. One more question. Um, is there mass transit that is available to the site now going outbound to Jessamine County? I spoke with a senior transit planner earlier today, and he said there is a route here, but I'm not sure if it's, it comes right up next to the site, but I know it's within probably, um... ... within a half or a full block of, uh, distance from, from this site, which I think an average city block's 660 feet, anywhere from 330 to 660, something like that. So, there is one in this area. I'm not ex- I'm not exactly sure if it comes right up next to this site or not, though. Ms. Copeland, I can also address that question. I spoke with, uh, Mr. David, who's a transit, senior transit planner. Uh, there are three LexTran routes serving this portion of Nicholasville Road. The closest stop is across Roje Drive to the south, in front of the other car dealership. Uh, and none of the routes currently go to Jessamine County. I think with a Walmart that's further south in this quarter's the sou- most southern location of the transit currently. One thing to keep in mind too, uh, on that, uh, uh, transit as we're, we're ... Right now, they're doing a comprehensive operational analysis for transit here in, uh, the urban county. And, uh, as we look at those areas and the amount of retail and jobs, employment and people moving throughout the area, we're, we're constantly looking at where we can improve and put more routes. So, we'll, we'll, uh, make note of that and, and see if there's any potential future opportunities. But, uh, that's, that's it. Thank you, Rob. You're welcome. Thank you. Mr.- Yes. Mr. Owens? Rob, um, as far as right in only, I can, I can understand them coming off Nicholasville Road onto Roje and going right in only. Since this aligns directly across from that other road- Nicholas Park Drive. Yeah. Uh, what's to keep traffic from going directly across Roje into this right in only? Is there anything that'll prevent 'em from doing that? Well, there are some different, um, treatments, but I'm not sure if, uh, traffic engineering is gonna put any kinda barrier there. Un- Uh, yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Well, I guess tentatively we were just, um, Tony is showing here that the driveway is actually shifted down a little bit. We may have to go a little bit further to keep people from shooting straight across the intersection. Um, so it gets a, it gets a little dicey. You're, you're splitting, you know, you're, you're improving one thing and, and sort of going against the grain on another, uh, because we're getting closer to Nicholasville Road. So, probably will pull it down another 10 feet or so just to keep people, discourage people from doing that. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. Thanks, Rob. And I, I think what we'll have, you know, this is a preliminary development plan, and we'll have further opportunity to obviously look at the final development plan on the resolution of this entrance. Any other questions for Rob or Jeff from Commission? Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate your all's questions. The staff and, um, and the, the, the folks on the Subdivision and Zoning Committee, uh, we, we do appreciate your, your interest in traffic, uh, and, and traffic management, and also in the transit part, the transportation demand management. So, um, keep up the good work. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Okay, I see we have quite a few folks in the audience. Uh, I'll start with folks that willing to speak in favor of this zone map amendment. Is there anyone in the audience want, would like to speak in favor of this zone map amendment? Okay, seeing none. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition of this zone map amendment? Okay, seeing none there. Okay, um, at this time, uh, Mr. Barrett, do you have anything else you'd like to add? Uh, I just wanna, uh, kinda redirect on the, uh, the traffic study and our, uh, process that we went through to, uh, not prepare one. If, if, if we felt that this property could've had a beneficial influence on traffic movement on Nicholasville Road, uh, we, we probably would've proceeded, or we would've proceeded with a, a traffic study to give us some direction as to, uh, how we can better serve the, the, the property as well as Nicholasville Road. Um, the, the comprehensive plan recommends, uh, business use for the site, uh, as it does from Man O' War Boulevard to, to New Circle Road, well, really on into Zandale, it looks like. So, uh, our, our goal is to capture basically existing traffic. It's already on Nicholasville Road. When you ask what we're generating, uh, intuitively I, you know, I don't think we'll create but two cars on Nicholasville Road. Uh, we're gonna, we're gonna take care of the people already traveling on Nicholasville Road. Uh, if, if you're, uh, gonna go to the grocery store on your way home, uh, from work, uh, we wanna provide that opportunity. Uh, I don't, I don't know that I'd drive over from Tates Creek Road to Nicholasville Road at 5:00 in the afternoon to go to this particular grocery store. Um, so, uh, when, when you look at our site, which is right here, and I'm covering up the whole site, and you've got, you know, that much red all around it, serving that corridor, uh, I just don't know what a traffic study would've revealed to us other than, "There's a lot of traffic on Nicholasville Road, and, uh, it's probably a good site for a business." So, uh, I did my best to align the, uh, the, the entrances to the parking lot so that you did not have to make a, uh, quick decision as you ent-, as you entered the parking lot. Uh, you've got a, a through drive that, uh, continues, uh, from the first bay to the, to the third bay. Uh, so that gives you, uh, 64- ... a hundred feet of, uh, travel length once you enter the site before you have to make a decision. Uh, the, uh, the, the right turn at the entrance and skewing it 'cause we were concerned about the, the cross traffic, and that was the suggestion to, to skew it so that you don't have a direct line of, uh, travel across. Uh, keeping the, the access where it is back on, uh, the access point, we reconfigured the grocery store to, uh, allow that to happen. And, uh, you know, again, it's a preliminary development plan. We'll see it again, and, uh, we don't have leases or sales agreements or anything for the particular, uh, tenants, so it's a little bit speculative, and it, it may change. Uh, I'm not saying it will. It may come back just like this, but, uh, at this point, given the, the market, they don't have a firm lease on it for anybody, and, uh, you know, our primary objective is, is to get the zoning. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Um, staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? I would just like to make a point of clarification. Um, when, uh, Mr. Barrett suggested on 13 when I stated we would be comfortable with resolved proposed access, just like to make it clear that that should be denoted on the plan that the proposed access shall be resolved at time of final development plan. Can, can you say that a little slower, Tom, so I can- ... say that qu- Denote proposed access shall be determined at time of the final development plan. I think that's a clearer way of stating what we've discussed here today. Thank you very much. All right, at this time, we'll close, uh, this portion of the, the hearing, and, um, I will turn it over to the commission for any further, um, discussion, comment. Um, we have before us, uh, the zone map amendment, uh, MAR 2009-1. Uh, for the reasons provided by staff, zoning committee recommended approval. There are some conditional zoning restrictions. Staff has indicated that, uh, they would delete item H, which is pawn shops. That is a conditional use in the B3. Um, and I think if, uh, folks are feeling welcome to Mr. Barrett's request for B, D, and M, um, that wou- should also be considered. Um, and then the restrictions, uh, are also identified. We have two, uh, two restrictions to those conditional zoning restrictions. Then we also have the zoning development plan. I think Mr. Martin just clarified condition 13. Denote proposed access shall be determined at time of final development plan. So, with that, uh, the Chair will turn it over to the commission. Motion? Mr. Chairman, uh, I'd like to make a motion for approval for MAR 2009-1 for findings provided by staff. Would you like the development plan also? Let's, let's take the, uh, the zone map amendment first, and then we'll do the- All right. Taking out, uh, pawn shops and the under conditional zoning also. 'Kay, we have a motion and a second to approve MAR 2009-1, um, with the noted, uh, revision to item G and the conditional zoning restrictions. All those- G? I'm sorry, H. Excuse me, H. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "I." I. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, also would like to move for approval of ZDP 2009-4 with the, uh, changing number, uh, 13 to resolve proposed access. Uh, we, we modified 13 to say, "Denote, denote pro- proposed access on the plan." Okay. Changing it to, "Proposed access will be determined at the final development plan." The staff would ask you to add, uh, condition number 14 to add the conditional zoning restrictions that you just approved to the development- And also adding conditional 14, the conditional zoning, um, applications. 'Kay, we have a motion and a second to approve ZDP 2004-04 with the, uh, thirten- thirteen conditions, changing 13 to, "Denote proposed access, shall be determined at final development plan," and adding condition 14 to include the conditional zoning restrictions. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "I." All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the record, could we get the second on that last motion? Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I heard it, but I didn't figure out where it came from. Thank you. Chairman Vaughan, the next item on our agenda, I believe begins on page 12. Is that correct? It's for, it's a ZOTA 2009-1, maybe 11, 12. On page 12, item- The, that item the zoning committee met last week, and, uh, made a motion to recommend to the full commission postponement for, I believe, a month, um, to th- allow the staff to look a bit, little bit closer at some of the language, and the staff would ask that you postpone, uh, that item until the March 26th, 2009 meeting. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Um, Ms. Phillips. Um, I'd like to move that we postpone ZOTA 2009-1. Second. 'Kay, we have a motion to second to postpone, uh, ZOTA 2009-1 to the March 26th meeting. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Thank you. I, I did wanna clarify. I think that second, Mr. Salih, on that, the caller property, the second was Ms. Whitman. On the development plan? Yes, on the development plan. Thank you. I didn't think I was hearing things. Thank you. Ms. Wade? Um, the next item on our agenda, a- on page 12 is item two, and can be found behind tab six in your notebooks, and it's ZOTA 2009-2. This is a text amendment which was initiated by the Irvin County Council to revise definitions of dwelling unit and extended stay hotels in article 1-11 of the zoning ordinance. And I have a few things to distribute to you. We've received several letters of correspondence, 12 items in opposition and three items in support. And I'm giving you all copies, and I'll submit the originals for the minutes. Uh, Chris also helped to distribute a few exhibits for this, uh, presentation. The first is a green packet that the staff did a little bit of research since we met in January, uh, for committees. Those are dwelling unit and other definitions from seven other communities. Also distributed was a one-page white handout that shows, uh, what I would call a continuum of uses related to dwelling units and, um, lots, um, any form of lodging unit, uh, from a hotel to a single family dwelling unit. And it also displays the zones where those uses are allowed in our current zoning ordinance. Before I get started, I would note that since this item was, uh, initiated by the Urban County Council, and they actually presented specific text to the planning commission, um, through their resolution. The planning commission has 60 days to review a text amendment initiated by council with, um, very specific texts attached to it. So, our staff received notice from the council on December 15th, so this is, um, planning commission's last opportunity to hear this item, uh, before our 60-day, uh, window expires. So, we would expect, uh, the planning commission to have a recommendation today. The, uh, staff reviewed the council's proposal to amend article one for the definitions of dwelling unit and extended stay, and we, um, want to acknowledge that there were two, um, our understanding is there were two precipitating events that led to this proposal. The first is, um, i- involves rental of a dwelling unit in a rural area that was occurring in the past on a less than weekly basis, and, uh, our understanding is now on a weekly basis, but on a fairly continual, um, cycle. Uh, this situation brought to light for, uh, the council that units, dwelling units can be rented weekly, um, on a continual basis, that is fi- up to 52 times per year, and, um, that also brought to light that it can be very, or not, I wouldn't say very, can be disruptive to, um, adjoining property owners and neighborhoods to have residential units rented that frequently. Um, certainly utilized to the maximum e- extent where 52 times you would have, uh, renters coming and going. The second participa-- precipitating event was the knowledge that World Equestrian Games is, um, very near and we also know that dwelling... Yeah, Lynn is looking at the clock, 589 days. Uh, the, uh, we also have the knowledge that dwelling units are often rented for, um, horse racing events or sales associated with the horse race, horsey, horse race industry. And, um, we understand that that occurs probably not 52 times per year, but on a somewhat regular basis. So, the staff understood and the council in initiating this understood that they w- they desired some flexibility in still allowing rental of dwelling units for, um, some events. But, but understood also that, um, that rental 52 times per year for dwelling units seemed, um, to be more of a commercial use than a residential use. So that, those two precipitating events, uh, led to a more in-depth look at what the dwelling unit definition says and led to, um, a proposed change to that dwelling unit definition. Also, the staff wanted to bring to light that the current restriction in, from our knowledge, of a, the weekly plus or weekly, monthly or longer in that dwelling unit definition was based on, at least in the past, on the State Building Code. And the State Building Code, uh, defined uses, um, as residential use or transient use and the line was drawn at seven days plus, it was, uh, dw- a dwelling unit, a residential use or, or over seven days. Seven days or less, or a week or less, was considered transient. Uh, since that, some of the events that have happened since then, the staff, um, knows that in the '80s, a bed and breakfast was approved on South Mill Street for the Rokeby Hall. And they utilized that definition of dwelling unit to, um, be allowed to do a dw- to do a bed and breakfast as long as they agreed to rent solely on a weekly basis or longer. Um, at that time and, and still, this is still true, Rokeby Hall is located in a residential zone so they were required to sign an affidavit that they would rent weekly or longer. In the '90s, the zoning ordinance, um, was amended to, uh, to provide more restrictions for bed and breakfasts and, um, they, there were, there are very, uh, strict, uh, requirements in the definition of bed and breakfast. And also, another change in the '90, or since then, the State Building Code no longer regulates uses based on transient and residential use, um, or at least in terms of a length of time of stay. So the re- changing the definition isn't necessarily tied to our dwelling unit or to, uh, the building code anymore. The revised definition for dwelling unit as proposed will change how often rental and leasing of dwelling unit can occur in the future. And the council generally would like to restrict, uh, residential dwelling units to be rented for a minimum of a month or longer. With the knowledge of the upco- upcoming World Equestrian Games and then of course the annual horse sales and, uh, meets, it was clear that the flexibility was needed, so they proposed, uh, a, an allowance for up to four times per year being able to rent dwelling units for between one week and one month. The amendment therefore will no longer allow residential dwellings to be rented on a weekly basis year round, which is considered more of a commercial use than a residential use. A corollary, corollary change is to the definition of extended stay hotel. And this is to avoid any confusion that dwelling units within the extended stay hotel are the same as a dwelling unit for a single family, um, two family or multifamily unit, um, where they, dwelling units in an extended stay hotel would not be restricted to the monthly or longer requirement. Um, but the single family, two family and multi-family units would be required to be restricted. Since the staff presented this text amendment to both the subdivision and zoning committees in early January, uh, we did review several other ordinances to find out how other communities, um, define dwelling units and how they restricted rental, if at all. And we found that of seven communities, we looked at four communities within Kentucky, Louisville, Covington, Bowling Green, and Paducah, and we looked at three communities outside of Kentucky, Orlando, fl- that were more resort-type communities, um, Orlando, Florida, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. We found that five of the seven do restrict dwelling units to 30 days or longer, a minimum of 30 days or longer. So that, the proposed devel- or proposed definition change is consistent with other, what other communities are doing. Um, we also found that there, the two that did not have that restriction, one, Paducah, uh, did not mention any length of stay. There was no requirement mentioned in their ordinance. Um, they may define that somewhere else, I'm not sure. Uh, and then the second, Bowling Green, defines dwelling unit almost exactly like Lexington currently does, with a weekly or longer basis. And that's in the green packet. Um, I won't go through. ... each page and if you-- but if you do have questions, I can try to answer those about the specific communities. Um, the staff did find it interesting that in the three communities that we looked at outside of Kentucky, um, they did several of them, uh, mentioned timeshares and that was a concern that was brought up by planning commission members during, uh, the committee meetings. And even timeshares, uh, were, if it was, i- in Myrtle Beach was an example. Uh, a timeshare, if it was less than 30 days, it was considered a transient use and therefore commercial. So residential use was still not less than a month. Had to be l- not less than a month, so a month or more. Um, and i- in Orlando also, timeshare is grouped in, um, in the definition of motel, and it's considered to be similar to a commercial use, uh, or a commercial dwelling unit. Uh, and in Virginia Beach, dwelling units are made available, um, for less than one month. If they are made available for less than mon- one month, they're considered a lodging unit, which is, um, part of a hotel. So, uh, the staff felt that the proposed change was in line with what other communities are doing, but we also recognize that there's been, um, some concern about this change, uh, by property owners who are, um, are renting their dwelling units on either a weekly basis or, in some cases, a nightly or weekend basis. And the staff received and read the opposition and, um, in some cases, the opp- people opposing this could be violating the existing ordinance in, in renting their units on a nightly or weekend basis. So we would just want to make that part of our record today, that, um, having a dwelling unit in a residential zone and renting it for less than a week is in violation of the current zoning ordinance. Um, and the only way to rent rooms on a nightly basis is either to be a hotel, a motel, or a, um, bed and breakfast. And a bed and breakfast, the way it's defined, you have to have an owner living at the property, um, and then still have permission from the Board of Adjustment to do that. So, and then second, the staff agrees, um, generally with the Department of Law that rental of dwelling units on a weekly basis is really more akin to a commercial use than to a residential use. Um, but, um, we do understand that with the World Equestrian Games, having some flexibility there was reasonable. Uh, the staff is recommending approval of this text amendment, and there are three r- three reasons listed on both your agenda and our staff report. The first, the proposed text would limit short-term rental and lease of dwelling units to no more than four times per year, which will l- will allow s- for some reasonable level of rental and lease of residential units on less than a monthly basis while providing additional protection to the neighborhoods and adjacent property owners, um, within the generally residential zones, um, and to protect them from traffic, noise, and other associated nuisances from frequent rentals. Uh, also the proposed definition change will properly regulate anticipated rental of residences during the World Equestrian Games as well as the, um, be in line with past practices of renting homes for, uh, horse sale, horse sales and horse racing events. And then last, the corollary change, um, to extended stay hotel will help to avoid any confusion between a dwelling unit, um, in a residential zone and then a dwelling unit in the, in the hotel and the time limits associated with those two different types of dwelling units. Happy to answer any questions, and I know there probably are quite a few. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Um, do we have any questions for Tracy? Did a good job. Oh. Thank you. Wow, okay. No, we have, um, citizens here to speak, so I'll- Okay. ... have them- Um, what I'd like to do is, uh, obviously take the citizens, um, um, willing to speak in favor of this, uh, text amendment, if you could, uh, come forward, give us your name and address. Thank you, Chairman. Um, my name is Knox Van Knocknaugle, and I'm located at 601 West Short Street. I'm here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. The Fayette Alliance, as you know, is a, is a group of agricultural neighborhood and development, uh, interests whose aim is to pro- is to promote urban and rural vitality here in Fayette County. Farmland preservation, the promotion of our signature agricultural industries, and the revitalization of our urban core are essential pillars of, of our organization, and more importantly to the county's future prosperity. As you know, uh, Council is proposing a text amendment Zona 2009-2 to Article 1-11 of the zoning ordinance that will change the definitions of a dwelling unit and an extended stay hotel. If adopted, this text, uh, amendment will allow home rentals on a monthly basis or for a period between one week and one month up to four times a year in Fayette County. Such rental requirements will address some of the temporary housing needs of major local, uh, events such as the 2010 World Equestrian Games and the annual Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton Thoroughbred Sales. On the other hand, it will also, uh, prohibit home rentals for a period of time less than one week, discouraging the presence of disruptive, transient, non-residential renters in agricultural areas and neighborhoods. An emerging phenomenon as real estate markets weaken and rental properties increase in number. As such, we feel that this text, uh, amendment achieves a delicate balance of advancing local tourism and individual property rights, while also promoting stability and safety in our rural areas and residential areas. Accordingly, we join the LFUCG planning staff, the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and Fayette County Farm Bureau in, um, supporting ZOTA 2009-2. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vonaggle. Yes, sir. My name's Tony Hancock, and, uh, my wife and I own and operate, uh, North Fork Farms. We are about a 300-acre operation total. We choose to live in Fayette County, and, uh, we live on Ironworks Pike. Um, I'm a lot more comfortable with a pitchfork in my hand than I am standing here in front of you, and so I apologize for any roughness that there may be on me. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a farmer, and, uh, so with that, let me push ahead and take just a moment of your time. The reason I'm here today is to tell you about a situation that I've been living with and trying to figure out an answer to. And to show you where this is, if you'll notice on the right-hand s- of the screen is Russell Cave Road, and going across the screen in a diagonal is Ironworks Road. This location is between Ironworks, or on Ironworks, between Russell Cave Road and Newtown Road. Um, the red dot is the, uh, place of the offending properties there. My farm is the one on the, on your right. Um, the Brewer farm is the farm on the left of that. There are two structures on the, this property that are being operated as hotels. Um, they're advertised heavily on the internet, uh, with holidayhomes.com, uh, vacationhomes.com, uh, all sorts of rental groups, and the, the advertisement says, "It's perfect for multi-families, large groups, and events." Um, despite their different representations to the code enforcement. They're also advertised as having all linens furnished, uh, all toiletries furnished, a stocked refrigerator, stocked bar. Whatever you want, they'll have it there for you when you come in. The owner of the property, uh, Mr. Jackson, lives in, uh, Tennessee, uh, does, is not a resident of the property, and his rates are, uh, somewhere in the $400 to $1000 a night depending on which structure you use. The bigger house is $1000 a night in prime season. Now, let me tell you why I'm here today, and be just as plain as I can be, and I'll try to answer any questions that you have. This has been characterized as a dispute between neighbors, and I can assure you that that is not the case. Uh, Skip, I'm not mad at you. I, there are no hard feelings toward you or Janie. We've known each other for a long time, uh, been together, I've, I've owned the farm on that location for about 20 years, and I think he's been there about 15. We know each other. Um, it's strictly a business problem that we have. I'm trying to operate a thoroughbred breeding operation, and he's running a hotel, and those two just don't mix side by side. Uh, the situation that we have is dangerous. I, I can't stress that enough. It's dangerous. It's dangerous to humans. I've seen children, I've seen people who are not familiar with horses running up to my fence. The horses, of course, curiosity, come running over to them, they pet them on the nose, and a horse will bite you just so fast, it, it's, I've been bitten myself, I've been kicked, and it hurts, and it hurts bad, and it can really damage someone. I have personally witnessed people feeding the animals, and that's a problem. Feeding animals, uh, I, I've seen guests feed 'em walnuts, for example. Um, they're on the ground, they look like an apple, the horse will gnaw around on 'em. Uh, the other damage is to the character of the Bluegrass. We have hotels springing up, and this is the tip of the iceberg, I believe. And, and I believe that, as I show you these photographs and some examples, you'll agree with me that this is not a situation that you want to continue. Specific dangers, uh, children and adults petting thoroughbreds, a clear danger to the people. And I've tried my best to warn them away, tried to keep them away, but I can't be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And I have come into the driveway and seen children in my field, and, and tried to warn them back out of the field. Just almost had a heart attack one day seeing that, where the horses were running, and, and I know how fast accidents can happen. I have also seen, uh, children and adults feeding the thoroughbreds. I've witnessed dogs chasing the horses, and I realize that, that the landowner has the right to, to kill a dog. I don't wanna do that. I don't wanna get in that situation. But, uh, we, I've seen that. Illegal fireworks, I've seen that. People don't know any better. They're renting the house, they don't know any better. Noise from large parties, alcohol consumption on an area country, country road. How did I get to where I am? You say, "Well, this seems like this oughta be a problem that could be handled under the existing ordinances." Building Inspection was notified in June of 2008. Um, Mr. Jim Hume, senior building inspector, wrote me a letter back and said there's no violation here. ... uh, I turned to Councilman Lane, showed him the same documents. He asked the city law department to review. Ms. Rowland, uh, issued a letter saying that this is a business use prohibited in an agricultural rural zone, pure and simple. Attorney Murphy, and you'll hear a, a much more smooth approach from him, but in the paper just this week, he says that we are in compliance with the ordinance today. We can rent on a weekly basis. Well, that is what's being told to the planning commission. That's what's being told to the paper. That's what's being told to building inspection. But in fact, the party house operation has just continued and continued and continued. There have been very, very few weekends, almost no weekends since last, uh, May, June timeframe that both of these houses have not been rented out. Generally, customers come in on Thursday, they exit on Sunday, uh, perhaps Monday, and there's a big party on Friday night and Saturday night. That's generally what happens. Um, as recently as a few weeks ago, um, my attorney had someone call Mr. Jackson on the phone and pretend to want to rent the property, and he was told, uh, "You'll be charged by the day. You'll need to sign a, a agreement that says by the week, but it's really gonna be by the day, and uh, we won't charge you for those days that you're not there." Just through, some recent events that you've seen here. By the way, the representation that this is, uh, being rented by the week and to single family units happened in the, uh, August, September timeframe, about the time that, uh, attorney, uh, uh, the attorney took over, the, uh, Attorney Murphy took over the case for, uh, the Jacksons. And, uh, these events happened after that. All three of these events have happened after that. And these are just three of the worst. There are others and, and this has been continuing on up to two weeks ago. Uh, this last weekend, I suppose the ice storm, uh, hampered business, but there was no one there this past weekend. Um, on October the 5th, there was a party tent. There was more than a hundred people there. A lot of witnesses to the loud music going on into the night, heavy traffic, a lot of alcohol consumed. Uh, the tent in this case was erected on Thursday for the reception on Saturday. It was taken down first of the week. And that's what it looked like back in the fields. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I, I'll just register general objection. I don't know how much you wanna get into specific events on specific properties where you're considering an ordinance that is across city line. I'll just make that objection to you, and you can decide how, how deeply you wanna get into this dispute here. Ne- duly noted, Mr. Murphy. I think, uh- I'm just about done. I think Mr. Hancock was at, uh, one or two of the committee meetings and- I have been, yes. I think we suggested that his opportunity to present would be this venue, so understood what you're said. So if you, uh, are close to wrapping up, Mr. Hancock- I am. ... that'd be good. I am very close. This is an example of what the parking lot looks like, and the number of cars gives you an exact, idea of the number of people. Another example, on October the 25th, again, after the representation that it was to a single family, more than 25 people attending, several states, cars from several state- states were there. Loud parties outdoors. Uh, horses were fed and petted. And that's what it looked like. You can see the balloons on the side. There's clearly a lot of cars, uh, there. On November the 1st, ten cars and vans, uh, 30 people, loud party, uh, the horses were petted and cars from several different state. Not a single family and not for a week. Now, uh, you can see, uh, again, the balloons, the cars, and this is my coup de grace, Brother Chairman. Um, I'd ask you to do something to help me. I've got to have some relief. Shoot up here amongst us, gotta have some relief. Uh, some say that this is in violation of current zoning ordinances, and I'm fine with that. If that's the case, then let's enforce it. Let's make somebody come out there and shut the hotel down. If it's not, and I'm told that it's not by Attorney Murphy and by building inspection, then let's amend this zoning ordinance so that it will be. Let's remove any possible ambiguities. The staff has done a good job of, of vetting this, of writing it so that it doesn't have side effects that we don't care about. Um, the council has been very supportive in this, and I'd ask you to not only approve this, but to provide adequate, uh, enforcement that, that allows this to happen. Uh, and there's several ways to do that. I'd also ask that you expedite the process because I am very concerned. Uh, we've had some close calls. We've had some close calls. We've not had any accidents that I'm aware of. Um, we've came very close to having horses run through fences, being startled. The feeding of the horses is something that goes on all the time. And, um, the inadequate sep- septic tank is something that I haven't mentioned to you, but the smell comes over on us. When you have a hundred people, uh, in a house that was made for, for, uh, a family, um, and no porta-potties, you just can't handle that. And, and so we have smells from the septic tank coming over onto the, the other farm. So I'd ask that you, uh, you do that, and I appreciate your patience with me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hancock. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak, uh, in favor of this text amendment? Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll take those that, uh, are willing to speak in opposition to the text amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. And, uh, got a couple of handouts for you. Paul Harvey used to have a show on radio, maybe still has it, I called The Rest of the Story, that you get to find out the part of the story that has not been disclosed before. And there are two sides to every story, and there certainly are here. And I'm, I appreciate you all hearing this. And unfortunately, you're going to have to hear... You've, you've heard a bunch of details of what i- what is, in fact, a neighborhood dispute. And we'll talk about that here a second too. I do have a handout here. I'll get it for you. Can I get a show of hands of others that may wish to speak in opposition? Two, three, four. Okay. I'm gonna watch the time limit on this, Mr. Murphy. We could, uh... So we give others the opportunity to speak. Mr. Hancock went about 15 minutes or 20 minutes- Okay. ... I believe. And- Okay. ... I think that my, my portion will be less than that. Thank you. The, uh... I've, I've given a handout to you, and, uh, the, uh, appreciate being able to speak to you t- today. The, uh... Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, uh, Skip is a native of Kentucky. Raymon- my clients are Raymon Jackson and Janey Jackson. I'll call him Skip because that's his nickname, Skip and Janey Jackson. They own the property at 1795 and 1791 Ironworks Pike. They own about 18 acres. Uh, Mr. Hancock, I believe, owns a 10-acre lot next to them. He does not have a 300 farm next, acre farm next to them. He may have one someplace else. I'm not saying he doesn't have one, but the... these are, are a group of smaller lots up there. I think his is 10. My clients have a 16 and a half acre lot and a two acre lot. Lots next to them are smaller lots as well. None of them conform to your current 40-acre lot size required for agricultural uses in this community. Uh, the... Skip is a native of Kentucky. He's in the horse industry, owns horses. He, he and Janey have lived on this proper- the property in the rear was their home. Now, they, they are callin' Lexington their home. They have moved to Nashville for employment purposes. They have a son who is a special needs child. They have a doctor here in Lexington who is particularly effective with them, and that's one reason they have maintained this home. They come back here fairly often to Lexington. Since Christmas, they have been living in the house five times, since Christmas, on that. So the, the largest use of that house is probably for Janey and Skip themselves, or excuse me, the largest time it's probably vacant. We... I was talking to them this morning, about half the time it's vacant. Half the time they are s- twen- about 20% of the time they use it themselves. About 20% of the time they rent it out to individuals, and about 10% of the time other, of their family members or friends are at the house. The, um... When... So when they're not using the house, they're here, and they do rent it out on a weekly basis. Uh, right now, the smaller house, the one at 1795 Ironworks Pike has been rented out for about two and a half months to a couple or family who is moving to Lexington from Atlanta. Their house wasn't finished on time, so they rented this and found the ability to have a temporary rental extremely helpful as their house was finished. So that house has been occupied for about two and a half months. Um, when people rent here, which, uh, w- what kind of rental is it? Now, we think it's a rental that is very helpful to the tourist industry here in Lexington. As you know, they're near the horse park out on Ironworks Pike. During, uh, pony competitions, hunter jumper competitions, uh, there's even new competitions coming there of vaulting, which, which apparently the riders on horses perform acrobatic feats while riding on horses. And that's gonna be part of the World Equestrian Games. And there's a, um, a preliminary for that being held this year. So there's all sorts of events at the World Equestrian Games. The, uh, most of them are horse park related events. Um, on my handout on page one and two, I number these at the lower right-hand corner of the page. I've just got an article from The Herald-Leader in August. Back on page two, I've highlighted a couple of things, just to point out this. The one is the director of the World Equestrian Games noted the horse park's growth and its new ability to, uh, hold events year round. And the possibility of tweaking the Breeders Incentive Fund is a perfect storm to make Kentucky the sport horse capital of the United States, not just the thoroughbred capital, but the sport horse capital of the United States. Over on the other column, the spokesman for the horse parks, spokesperson for the horse parks said, "The park receives more business that it, it can handle." It is booked through 2010 and turns away about 25 horse shows a year. As you know, they're building a new indoor arena out there which will make even more possibilities available. Lexington is not a community, as you all know, that has horse events only four weeks a year, as it was 25 years ago when the horse park was dead. It is a community that has horse-related events year round, and the horse park is making sure that these are available horse- uh, year round. Now, when you come to Lexington with horses, as you all know, you can't check your horses into the Holiday Inn Express, and you can't check 'em into the Embas- Embassy Suites or the Marriott either. Some people don't mind being separated from their horses. Some people want to have their horses on the same property with them. Janey and Skip have a 16-acre paddock. ... which makes it ideally suited for people who are exhibiting horses at the horse park. As I understand, at some of the competitions, you have to board your horses at the horse park. Some of the competitions, it's optional. And in a lot of the competitions, they don't have enough room at the horse park for all of the horses that are competing. So a lot of the people, maybe the week before the competition, they wanna have their horses there and available. Maybe during the competition they wanna have their horses there and available. Other rentals, uh, relate to Keeneland, a lot of it's horse, w- well, most all of it's horse related. So this is an important facility and there are few like this, and it's a facility that is sorely needed in this community. If we're gonna be the sport horse capital of the world, we have to allow people to have a place where they can stay and where their horses can board as well, because a lot of people want that when they're coming to the horse park. Um, the newspaper article, um, uh, as I said, says that the horse park is open year round, and I- and wants to operate year round, and they have a new facility that's coming y- year round. Now, I wanna talk about this, um, issue with a neighbor, which Mr. Hancock says is not a neighborhood dispute. I'm glad to hear it's not a neighborhood dispute 'cause it pret- it sounds pretty, pretty, uh, like, like a dispute to me. Uh, the picture that was in the paper yesterday of the, of the tent, which I assume was taken by Mr. Hancock and provided to The Herald-Leader, is, is irrelevant to this. This was not an event that was done by one of the paid guests of Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. This was a party involving a personal friend of Mr. Jackson. He was there on site at all times. I don't think it's illegal to have a party tent in the AR zone. It- Can I ask a question here? Uh, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll have rebuttal time, Mr. Hancock. Thank you, sir. 'Cause I think if it were illegal, uh, a lot of people wouldn't have derby parties around here. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson have their own derby party there every year, with a lot of people coming to it. And again, I don't think that's illegal in the AR zone either, because if it were, a lot of people would be in violation in this community. The, um, some of the events, they, ma- many of the events they object to were not being done by paid guests at this facility and will not be impacted by this ordinance one way or the other. Um, there are the lo- lot, lot of things the Hancocks have done which do not conform with the Han- with my clients' concept of neighborliness. I won't get into that now, except to say the way to solve these disputes is face-to-face between the neighbors. And that is gonna be done because there's a mandatory mediation taking place Monday between these two neighbors. That's how these problems need to be solved, and that's how they should be solved. When you go to mediation, you come out with a written agreement, "I'm gonna do this and you're gonna do this, and we're gonna make sure we're good neighbors to each other." That's the way it oughta be done. You don't need an ordinance which is gonna affect everybody in Fayette County to do this. The, uh, we're objecting to this on policy basis for a number of reasons, and I'll go quickly here. Uh, number one, we feel that this is in violation of the r- Uniform Landlord Residential Tenant Act. And, uh, on page 11 of my handout, I have the ordinance where Lexington adopts that. The, the Uniform Act is a state act, and on page 12, I show you that when the state adopted this, they said, "Cities can adopt it, but you can't make any changes in it. You have to adopt the whole thing, all or nothing at all on this one." And, uh, page 12, I mention that's the all or nothing at all provision. Page 13 says that, "In a rental agreement, the landlord and tenant can, uh, provide terms and conditions r- including the rent term of the agreement and other provisions re- regarding the rights and obligations of the parties." Think the Uniform Landlord Rented- Tenant Act allows them to do a weekly rental basis on this. On page 14, I show you where the Landlord Tenant Act does contemplate week to week tenancies on there. Now, that's something that hopefully will not have to come up. I know lawyers differ on that, but when I called the Fair Housing Council here in Lexington, which is the agency which enhorse- enforces the Fair Housing Act, they said, "If you pay your rent weekly, you're a week to week rental on this." Second reason is that this import- this ordinance is not gonna just impact two properties, two 10 acre lots or ours is a 20 acre lot, is a 10 acre lot out in the agricultural area. It's gonna impact every residence in this community. As I was doing research for this and calling people in the business, I learned that this has a disproportionate impact on two areas. One is what they call the executive level rentals. I know when I, in my current neighborhood, there's a house three doors down from us that for 15 years we called it the Toyota House. It was rented, it was owned by a company that rented it out, um, to executives coming in and out of this community. Sometimes they'd be there six months, sometimes it'd be vacant for two months, sometimes it'd be used for a week, sometimes it would be used for two weeks, that sort of thing. We called it the Toyota House. That's not unusual around town, and, and those are often rented on a weekly basis. The other segment of society which this impacts is the lower income segment of society, which many lower income rentals are on a week to week basis. You pay your, you pay every week, and if you don't pay, you have to leave after the end of the week. I talked, I don't know if Mr. Wharton is here from the Human Rights Commission. I see that he is, and I think he has some comments on this, which he will make to you as well about the impact on low income people of this ordinance. So you, we're not just thinking about a party tent, which wasn't a paid guest anyway. We're thinking a lot of impacts around this entire community. The, um, uh, third aspect is the tourist industry itself. Um- We are - we - as I said, we say we are the horse capital of the world. We wanna be the sport horse capital of the world. What does it say if we're saying that somebody who has facilities for horses cannot rent those to people coming to events at the horse park, which wants to operate year round, not just four weeks a year? Even if you don't have horses, what does it say? Say, "Well, come to Lexington, but you can only stay in a hotel. We don't want you staying in a house." Um, other cities do this. I in my - I looked at Charleston, South Carolina. I, I went online and I looked at one rental site for Charleston, South Carolina, just because Charleston is an example that has been held up in this community very often, and it's similar to this because Charleston is not just a beach town. If I go to Beach Town, everybody rents by the week there, so I could prove, you know, everybody all over the co- this, this country rents on a weekly basis. But Charleston is a functioning city, just like Lexington. It's the second-largest city in the state, like Lexington. It is the financial capital of its state. What do they do? Well, and in my handout to you on, uh, toward the back there on, uh, pages... excuse me, it's toward the front, 3 to 10, I have eight pages of rentals for people th- that are available in Charleston. Now they rent out carriage houses, they rent out King Street, which I think is right in the middle of downtown there. They rent along the Battery, they re- re- rent townhomes. They range from $179 a night to $1,000 a night or $1,500 a night through there. Look through all of them. Every one of them lists a nightly rental. Not weekly, but nightly rental. Every one of them lists a nightly rental through there. And Charleston, as I said, has eight pages of them here. That is the tourist community that has been br- held up to Lexington repeatedly as what we need to be doing. What does Charleston do? I wa- I'll of- often wondered when I go to Charleston, "Where do all these people stay?" Because there's not that many hotels in, in Charleston. Well, they're staying in the houses there. Those houses you see are being rented out on a nightly basis to people who want to enjoy the tourist experience of Charleston, South Carolina. The, uh, I've al- uh, as Louisville rents out, uh, they do this for the Ryder Cup, they do it for the Derby, they do it for the Breeders' Cup, they do it for Thunder Over Louisville. Um, and I put in there, in my handout as well, page 18, is the Herald-Leader article, which was in yesterday. I put that in just for the comments. I understand you all have gotten some emails and there are about 10 comments here, which, y- you know, if you go on o- online, you can put your comments in for the Herald-Leader and they publish that, and that's one of the selling points of their online version is you can interact and put your comments in there. Every one of these comments was against this regulation. Now I will point out to you, there's one comment by somebody who has stayed in this house twice for week-long periods. That was not solicited by my clients. Uh, they, we, they called them up afterwards to thank them, but somebody they know in Lexington called them up and said, "Hey, look at this. These, these people made a comment in." But the comments have been uniformly opposed to this, and I, I'd ask you to look over some of them. It says, "In this economy, they better, they, you better think long and hard about restricting this. Not to mention how will this affect those who are renting out property during the, during the 2010 games. It will be hardest on those who have already agreed to rent out housing and stalls for that." So the... there are major implications of this beyond this certain agreement. Now, what do the Jacksons do now? As Mr. Hancock mentioned, he made a complaint to the Division of Building Inspection over the summer. And the Jacksons contacted me and we worked with Division of Building Inspection, talked to them. Um, the Jacks- the Jacksons had been under the understanding that as long as the majority of the rentals were over a week, they could rent it out on a nightly basis. Building Inspection informed them, "No, you cannot do it on a nightly basis." They have stopped doing it on a nightly basis. They only do it on a weekly basis. Their, their postings on the internet now reflect weekly rentals, not nightly rentals. Everybody who rents here is given a firm, uh, stern warning about the Hancocks, the, the issues raised there with petting the horses and that sort of thing, uh, and, and noise, parties, and that, that type of issue. There are ordinances, if, uh, parties seem to be an issue, there are ordinances about noise here. Uh, fireworks, the Jacksons couldn't verify that anyone on their property ever shot off fireworks. There's about 10 tenant houses on the property on the other side, which they know from past experience always shoot out fireworks on the 4th of July. Maybe it was somebody at their house, they can't tell for sure, but they have informed everybody, absolutely no fireworks. They have informed people about parties, they have informed people about, uh, petting or approaching horses on the Hancock property. They have posted No Trespassing signs along the boundary lines so people won't get up there. And people who come in there understand what the rules are. The, uh, last thing I wanna mention is, is another reason why this ordinance is not going to do what it accomplishes to do, and that is because the Jacksons are a valid non-conforming use on this. We went to building inspection in August. We s- we said, "Yes, we rent it out on a weekly basis. No, we will never... we will not rent it out on a daily basis." Uh, building inspection looked into it and sent us a letter back saying, "You are in compliance with the ordinance. You do not need to go to the Board of Adjustment." Apparently informed Mr. Hancock of that. We are a valid, that makes us a legal use, as of the date of that letter, which is in your handout, September 3rd or September 4th. And the Jacksons may continue to rent their property on a weekly basis, even if you change the ordinance to say it has to be on a monthly basis. And that's tr- and that's important. There are other people here today, and I remember this from years ago, um, properties that were in the R3 and R4 zone that are rented out on a weekly basis. And this was before the idea of a bed and breakfast even existed. And it was ruled at that time that under the existing definition of a dwelling unit, you can rent out your dwelling unit on a weekly basis. So if somebody wants to s- call themselves a hotel downtown, and they're not what we call a hotel under the zoning ordinance, they can do that as long as they rent out on a weekly basis on that. And there are people, I think, here today who will discuss that with you. You, and I think they're probably a nonconforming use. I think we're a nonconforming use as well, but the point is, you're gonna be impacting a lot of other people as well. You're gonna probably be impacting lower income people, you're gonna be impacting upper income people, people in downtown, not just people in the rural areas. Um, so again, I know you have, have limited time to deal with this because the council imposed a 60-day deadline on you, which is running out in about three days. Um, we don't think this ordinance is needed at all. Uh, we feel this has arisen because of one issue, one issue because of a dispute between these neighbors. Whether we call it a dispute or not, it's a issue between two neighbors. We think it oughta be resolved on a face-to-face basis, which we think it probably will be. It has a good chance of doing this. But there's no need to subject the entire community to this issue. You know, if, if let's assume all the problems which Mr. Hancock said are true, we're still taking a broad brush cannon approach to kill a fly on this one because it's a issue relating between two parties. They need to sit down together. And there are existing ordinances, noise, trespassing, whatever, that if there's a violation, it can be done. Now, Mr. Hancock says, will say, "Well, that's not good enough." And I say, "We went through this with building inspection, and building inspection determined we were in compliance." I know he disagrees with that and doesn't like the fact that building inspection found that we were in compliance, but in fact, we are in compliance with it. Uh, if there are issues about parties, the Jacksons have their own parties there, which don't relate to paid guests at all. And, uh, parties should be dealt with on a noise basis or on a complaint basis that way, not, it's not because of the length of tenancy that he has those issues there. If you can't recommend disapproval, which I certainly hope you can, you do have the option of sending it up to the council with no recommendation as well. They, they are the ones who initiated this, and you do have the ability to send it up to them with no recommendation at all if no recommendation is appropriate. And, uh, again, we thank you very much for your attention to this. We don't think a citywide ordinance is needed to deal with this issue. I know, uh, I talked to Ms. Boland this morning, and I know she hasn't issued any ruling on whether we're a nonconforming use or not, and, uh, and I don't think she's, it's at the stage of the proceeding where it would be appropriate to do so. I needed to s- just, 'cause other people needed to say things on the record, I needed to say things in the record and get them on the record for you all as well. But I hope you will step back and look at this as it impacts the entire community of Lexington, the R1 zone, the R5 zone, the R4 zone, as well as the AR zone, and we simply don't think this is needed. And we hope you'll vote against it, and I know my clients would like to talk to you a little bit, and there's a number of other people in the audience who would like to address you as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I'd like to ask your clients, if they'd like to speak, to, uh, be brief, uh, for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Skip Jackson. I live at 1795 Ironworks Pike and also 1791 Ironworks Pike. The properties are, uh, together. Pardon me, you have to excuse me. I've got a terrible cold. Uh, my wife bought the property at 1795 or 1795 Ironworks in 1992. It was uninhabitable. We made it into the farm it is today. The property is our heart and soul. We are not Nashvillians. We are Lexingtonians. We are back so many times a year, in fact, that that's why we rent the properties as we do, so we can still come do our business here, our kids can still grow up here and spend time on the property. Uh, this property is not just a piece of ground to us. It is our family legacy, and it is our heritage. No one cares more about the Bluegrass and the integrity of the Bluegrass than me and my wife and my extended family, which most of my extended family do live in the Lexington area still. Um, we have, uh, a special needs child. Uh, it's been a long road with, but that's one of the reasons we come back often. Um, I won't, uh, give you any of the gory details, um, but this is a neighbor dispute. This is a neighborhood, uh, a neighbor dispute, one-on-one. Somehow, we found ourself in front of a planning commission, uh, that could possibly go to the city council between a neighborly dispute. I would like to make sure that everyone understands that Mr. Hancock has never once picked up the phone or walked across the fence... ... and complained to me or, uh, given any rise to any problems on my property or what I was doing personally or on the phone, and I have personally called him myself to see if there was anything I could do once I found out he had a complaint with the, uh, the zoning enforcement. It... My calls were never returned, um, and he has never come over to, uh, talk to me or speak to me about this matter in any way, shape, or form. We rent our properties weekly, and that allows us to have our, uh, continued family use of our properties because we are back so often. If we rented the properties on long-term leases for 12 months or 24 months, we would not be able to enjoy our own property, which like I said, is our heart and soul. Pardon me. A lot of our guests, most of our guests are non-paying guests. My, uh, wife's great-grandmother comes to... For doctors visits. My extended family comes here. Uh, since this article came out in the, uh, Herald-Leader, I've gotten calls from literally all over the world. I had a call from Australia. I got a call from London, England. I got a call from Charleston, South Carolina. And they just couldn't believe the article and how it spun what we use our property for because they have all stayed at our property and they know how well we maintain it and how much we think and care about the property in the area. Uh, most of the folks, especially the folks in, uh, London, England, uh, was, uh, my wife's, uh, bridesmaid. She was at a, uh, a wedding reception in 1994 on my property. It was mine and my wife's. And she comes back almost every year to see us. We get our families together. That's how we use the property. We had my wife's grandmother's 80th birthday there, uh, in midsummer. Those are the uses we have on our property. And yes, we do rent them weekly. We rent our properties leiquy- weekly. By the time guests actually, uh, get the key to our house, they have been vetted because no one understands more of, uh, an investment and how much this property means to us as a family than me and my wife. I don't turn the keys loose to a bunch of party or college people as some would have you believe. Um, I know we ha- saw some pretty pictures up there. Uh, and as, um, Mr. Murphy had said, the, uh, the pictures does not have anything to do with paying guests to begin with. Um, we feel uncomfortable on our own property a lot of times because of our neighborly dispute and we hope to get this solved during mediation. Um, if Mr. Hancock would have ever approached me to straighten this thing out through some type of mediation, I would have been more than happy to, but I was never aware that he had a problem with anything I was doing on my property. The folks on the other side of us, the Brewers, I've spoken to them several times and told them if they ever see anything on my property, whether they be friends of mine, my family, or paying guests, or anyone that he didn't think that, that I would approve on what's going on on my property, pick up the phone and call me. My father lives two miles down the road. He checks on the property frequently. I always know what's going on on my property and if I don't, if there's something going on on my property that I don't know about, I want to know about. This ordinance will have, uh, an effect not only on our property, but it'll have effect all over the county. And since this ordinance come out, I've gotten a lot of calls and a lot of support from all over the city. People I didn't even know calling me, pardon me, calling me to lend support because they either do the same thing or they can't believe that we're at this point to where an ordinance like this could pass to limit property ownership rights and to limit what, uh, legal uses, uh, an, an individual can use his property for. I've been overwhelmed by the amount of support frankly, um, and I, I, I won't, I won't take up much more of your time. Um, this is a neighborhood dispute. There are plenty of laws. There has never wh- been one time where an enforcement agency has been called to my house for noise, for parties, for anything such that, that has been said is going on on my property on... and I know that that's on, that's on the record. There has never been one single time. I've been there 17 years. The FEI Games, I, I'll leave you with this lastly. This ordinance seems to come from, uh, the council where they thought they could kill two birds with one stone. They could settle the neighbor dispute with a wide brush and also take on the issue of the World Equestrian Games during that time period. Um, it does neither. Uh, it does neither for the neighbor dispute and as far as the FEI Games goes, as a, quote unquote, man on the ground like myself who is a Lexingtonian, people call me all the time asking about the Equestrian Games. "What are you gonna do for the Equestrian Games? Well, how are you gonna use your property?" You know, and as friends of mine, family of mine, people from all over the country, also property owners, I've had so many property owners contact me about the FEI Games. I've been in contact with the World Equestrian Games folks, the, uh, event home leasing that is the official Equestrian Games, uh, official housing sponsor. They have been out to my property. We have been working hand in hand. ... to maximize and come up with, uh, ways that, uh, property owners in this county can maximize, uh, their potential for the F- for the Equestrian Games. By limiting four weeks out of the year that you can rent your property, uh, as this ordinance would do, it is going in the opposite direction. Folks that are coming into the FEI Games are not all gonna be able to stay for one week. And I know that because I've had many inquiries over the past year or so. And I've been in direct contact with folks for different reasons coming to the FEI Games. Uh, whether they be competing, uh, whether they be coming at, uh, from Germany, from, uh, Sweden. I gotta call last, uh, week from someone from Sweden. She only wanted to stay three nights because she could only be gone three nights. And I had to send her an email back and say, "I'm sorry, right now there is an issue, uh, e- that is in front of the zoning board. Hopefully we can, uh, do something with this." Also, folks that are gonna rent their properties for people coming in, the 600,000 odd people who are expected to be here, they cannot necessarily move out of their house for an entire week, several weeks at a time. I know some probably can. One of my good friends, she wants to rent her property two or three weekends during that time period to get ahead on her mortgage. She lives by herself, her house is clean. And when I told her that she couldn't do that, and she could not rent nightly, um, then, e- she said, "Well, I can't move out a whole week. I've gotta be at work every day. You know, I can't move out a whole week to get a whole week's rental." And right now, the proposed ordinance will not only, uh, it will not, uh, I guess, solve the problem of the FE Games, it will make it worse. If anything, during the FEI Games, if the council's intention was to get this, uh, uh, ordinance through to solve a neighbor dispute and to solve the FEI solut- the, the, the FEI question, it definitely doesn't either. They- If they really wanna solve the problem, they should go in the other direction and allow for that period, during the FEI Games, to rent nightly. Um, that way, the landowners, property owners, and the folks coming in from all over the world to see this beautiful city and see this beautiful state in the Equestrian Games can take advantage two, three, four, five, six days out of the week. I've spoken with, uh, the folks at, uh, Event Home Leasing on this. I know that they, uh, do the Kentucky Derby and they recently did the Ryder Cup. Mr. Jackson, I know there's some other people that wanna speak. So- I understand. I'm sorry, sir. Mr.- One minute 30 seconds. All right, thank you. I've spoken to her in Louisville. Uh, uh, she says that they sell weekend packages for those special events, uh, and that generates more revenues for the city, and it generates more revenues for the landowners and more people coming into the city. I'm sorry to have taken so much of your time, but as I said, this property is our heart and soul, and I appreciate the time that you've taken here to hear me. Thank you, sir. I think we have some others that wanted to speak in opposition. I saw a hand raise. Yes, sir, if you could come forward. Thank you. Mr. Morton wants to speak. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Bracken, and my wife, Jeanette, and I own a home on South Upper Street, um, that we rent to tourists currently on a weekly basis. And we feel that we fill... We fill an important, albeit small, uh, component of the tourism industry in Lexington. Uh, many of our guests would not even come to Lexington if it were not for the fact that they couldn't rent a home. Uh, we're very particular about whom we rent our home to because we love our home and want to make sure it's well taken care of. Uh, in addition, we have paid approximately $10,000 in local and state taxes since we began renting our home. And we do have a business license. Um, all proceeds that we get from our house, uh, that exceed what the mortgage costs, we put back into our historic home as renovation projects. When I first moved to Lexington 19 years ago, I lived on South Upper Street, which is why we have a special attachment to the South Hill District. We want to do our part to make sure its history is maintained, but we would not be able to do that if we could not rent out our home to tourists. Uh, we are not absent landlords and are active in the community, and it really does bring us special joy to share our city in such an intimate way with our guests. If this amendment is passed, we will be forced to sell our home, and by no fault of our own, uh, which is a pretty scary prospect in today's economy. There's a domino effect as well. Uh, we were going full ahead on a project, uh, to renovate our home, which we have put on hold pending the outcome of this amendment. Uh, this is income our contractor and his subcontractors were relying on, and it may not happen now. In our view, short-term rentals are not the problem. Uh, this amendment is being considered as a remedy to address problems at specific properties, but penalizes all homeowners, including people like us that have no such problems and make an effort to do things the right way. An alternative solution could be the development of a licensing process for vacation rentals in which the city can regulate the total number of licenses and the density of licenses in any given neighborhood. Clear guidelines are needed for both owners and tenants with contract requirements indicating that violation of any laws is reason for immediate eviction of a tenant and meaningful enforcement on homeowners, such as a three-strikes rule that would result in loss of license after three ordinance infractions by tenants or homeowners. Adopting a more targeted solution will enable homeowners like us to keep our homes and increase tourism dollars and tax revenue for Lexington. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, sir. Is there anyone else that... Yes, please. Mm-hmm. My name is Kate Savage. I live at 619 Columbia Avenue, and I'm here with a kind of a different spin on this whole issue. I live in an R1 district, campus neighborhood. We are, uh, and have been for about 20 years, struggling with rental issues in the, um, areas that surround the university. I personally have listened to both sides, and it seems very evident to me that this is a neighborhood squabble and should never have made it to this stage. Balloons are not illegal. Uh, we deal with noise, trash, um, loud parties every single weekend. And this is a beleaguered neighborhood. We get no assistance or help whatsoever. We're expected to call Lex Call and deal with the party plan, which actually adds that three-strike thing, which is a very good suggestion by that last gentleman. Um, I think you're opening a can of worms here because we will be very indignant. We have waited a long time in these neighborhoods to have some resolve to the rental issues that exist there, and now there is some tinkering with something that is of absolute no use. It seems to penalize a lot of people, and I frankly don't really understand what the intention and the idea is behind this text amendment. Will it stop parties? No. A party on 20 acres? It's not really nearly as intrusive as something that's in my neighborhood, which we're expected to tolerate and just make a call to Lex Call. We have been caught up in committees and discussions and student housing task force get-togethers. For years, there's still no resolve and yet this, for some reason, gets a fast track forward. I'd like to know how, so that as the President of the Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association, I can get a fast track text amendment to the R1 neighborhood that I live in that we feel very strongly is being abused. R1 is family residential area, and we have non-related large numbers of people living and abusing and exploiting the zoning. I'm sorry to piggyback on this, but I feel that this is where if text amendments and zoning issues need to be focused in this city, this is where it needs to be, not restricting people who are quietly going about their business. As for the federal, um, as for FEI games, where are all these people going to stay? And this is just listening to the arguments today. Who is going to police this four times a week? I mean, four times a year, uh, once a week? Is it gonna be as it is in my neighborhood where neighbor is expected to spy and snoop on neighbors so that we can then make sure that there is no more than four weekly rentals a year? This seems a very cumbersome law to me. Um, it's also a double standard. I think that it's absurd and I think it's discriminatory, and I don't think enough was made by the attorney about the fact that people who are paid by the week can only rent by the week. They cannot bring together enough, muster enough money to pay monthly. What will happen to those poor folks? Um, and again, these are just thoughts that have occurred to me. I'm really just here to represent my neighborhood and register some indignation that time is being spent on this kind of tinkering with the zoning when we need help with R1 being enforced in the neighborhoods around campus. And that's where we feel planning and city council should be putting their time and effort when it comes to ordinances. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Savage. Uh, I believe Mr. Wharton wanted to speak, uh, neither in favor nor opposition, but wanted to say a few words. I want to say a good afternoon to everybody this afternoon, and I wanna make clear that, um, my name is William Wharton, and I'm Executive Director of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. I'm here not in favor of or nor are, um, are against the proposal there in front of me. I'm here because some of the things we do with respect to enforcing the local fair housing ordinance concern us about this proposed change with respect to, uh, the, the definition for dwelling. One of the things we do with respect to our, our local ordinance in terms of re- reinforce, we annually get with the lo- with the, with the staff and ask questions about zoning and land use decisions that happened the previous 12 months. We look at some planning decisions to see what kinds of effects they, they have on, on fair housing and fair housing choice. But there's a group of things that we ask that we're all concerned about, and, and when our antenna goes up when those happen. There are about five definitions when you start tinkering with, and I'm gonna use that word 'cause there are some people who don't. It gets our attention. Those are family dwelling, single family dwelling, group home, manufactured home, or works to that equivalent. And the reason why that concerns us, because most of the times when you start proposing amendments, you start proposing restrictions on housing use, and restricting housing use restricts housing choices. And that's one of the things that we are concerned about with respect to fair housing. In looking at this particular issue, what concerns, and what, what I want to bring to you is not so much this particular situation, but what comes next. As the previous speaker had said to you, uh, you know, there's a prop- some proposal that fl- that are floating around with respect to amending the definition of family that are fairly restricted with respect to housing choice. There's some other definitions that are floating around with respect to address the issue around college students, moving their parties, and those kind of things. And I'm thinking, if this goes, then those things are gonna come up, and adding this restriction, which does restrict choice, what are we gonna have with respect to a, a group of people in our community that are not represented? Now, to me, and, and this is my own personal opinion, there's nothing magical about when you pay your rent, or how often you pay your mortgage. And one of the things that frustrate me is that when gentlemen, uh, last year come here and say, "We need help." They go through these, start here and go to th- to, uh, zoning and code enforcement. They go to, they get referred to down, then they come down to the second floor and talk to their councilperson and we have these. But there is more, there are more efficient, there are, to me there are more, there is a more efficient, eh, way to address this particular issue. Um, Mr. Murphy mentioned the Landlord Tenant Act. For a number of years in our community, um, we have suggested, um, I'm not sure if people have heard us, if we have these issues, why not we directly address those issues in the ordinance in which those things apply? We can define what responsibility landlords have, we can define what re- responsi- what tenants have, and we can enforce those 'cause we do it, it with that Landlord Tenant Act. To me, in terms of this, it is frustrating to me to hear some of the problems that are set. And whether you pass this or you don't pass it, there's, to me, tinkering with a def- with this definition, it is very easy just to change the, uh, the term of your contract and do some other things, and person go- a person could go on using this use as, as they can. This person will have the same problem, we won't have the same problem, but I think there's an easier way to empower lan- ne- neighbors to en- to enforce and have the right to enjoy the peaceful enjoyment of their property, without going through this, getting, getting all in this, this c- this carousel, going to all these different places and lined up here, then ask you to change the, the act. Now, one of the things I want to conclude with, and I don't have any statistics that I can share with you, uh, but I tried to call my friends in social services, particularly housing, to see if we can figure out how many people actually pay their rent less than once a month. We know that they do, but we can't put a number on those. Those people are, they're typically working poor, low and moderate income, and right now, they're not receiving social services. This method of, of housing seems to work for them, and I'm not sure we want to tinker with that and, and w- what's gonna come then. Even more so than that, in looking at, uh, uh at our current, uh, financial situation, and looking to the future, how can we predict what housing products we may need in the future with respect in terms of not only h- to continue people in their housing of, of their choice. Like I said, I'm not a pro- proponent of nor a pro- proponent against, but I do know if we continue this circle in terms of where we send people to solve this particular problem, rather than address it to the people who have the responsibility to do it, and empower neighbors to enforce that ordinance, you're gonna have other people back here having the same thing, asking you to change the definition. The next family will probably have somebody come in and say, "What's the definition of family? To prohibit more than two people who are unrelated living together." And do that for student council. Other proposal they will say, you live, come to you and ask you, "Well, let's do some downzoning in this particular area." This is you'll pit neighbor against neighbor. Other situations and neighborhoods will kind of come to you and say, "We want a historic zoning. Let us protect our communities that way." Why don't we just, for the sake of argument, put the responsibility where it is, empower the neighbors to en- enforce that responsibility to them. And so that we can get on in terms of enjoying our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Warden. Is there anyone else that, uh, hasn't had a chance to speak that would like to speak? Sure. Thank you. Okay. Just to address, I know my husband went on for a little bit, the ar- Can I get your name please? Janey Jackson, 1795 F- uh, Ironworks Pike. Thank you. Um, the four-week period is kind of arbitrary. I know, um, because if you just take a look like the Horse Park has over 40 events a year, turns away 25 a year. There's a Rolex three-day event, Keeneland runs for six weeks, derbies a week, four weeks in, um, July of this year is gonna be qualifying events for the vaulting teams that will be, um, uh, competing in the FEI Games. There are gonna be more and more weeks up, running up until the FEI Games that persons are gonna be coming out of town, needing to stay a week at a time for the qualifying events. There's one-week pony club, um, event in August, the further qualifying events, and that doesn't even take into account the sales at Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton, and, um, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Jeanette Bracken, 350 South Upper Street. And my husband spoke earlier, and I think I just wanted to make one other point. Um, in the text amendment itself, it does make the point that there has been an attempt to have a reasonable, um, compromise where there can be rentals four times a year. And there was another, um, uh, comment by staff that, you know, there's a concern that right now if you rent 52 times a year, that that could really be a problem. And I guess we just wanted to point out that there's a big difference between four times and 52 times, and in our case, we really do, uh, enjoy using our home and we want to use our home on Upper Street. And so we are there quite often, um, and so for us, we have no desire to rent our house anywhere near 52 times a year. We do have a lot of requests. I mean, there are people coming in to Lexington for all kinds of reasons. Um, you know, family reunions and horse events, yes, but people who just want to get together and come to a central location, so we do have people contacting us a lot, but we are, in our case, we are in, in no way close to the 52, but certainly, uh, for our house to be able to, um, pay for itself, we're certainly more than four weeks a year. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bracken. Thank you, Ms. Bracken. Okay. At this time I'll ask staff if they have any rebuttal. Thank you, Chairman Vaughan. I'm gonna address a few points, and then Mr. Salih would like to address a few things as well. Um, first, Mr. Murphy brought up the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. And in discussion with the Department of Law, the staff doesn't believe that that act actually prohibits the local government from regulating the, the term of rental, um, to a monthly rental. In fact, other, you know, communities within Kentucky do that now. And that's, um, I think the act does speak to if someone is renting on a weekly basis. Um, these are the conditions in which if you need to terminate that, you need to give them seven days notice, et cetera. Um, secondly, the advertisements from Charleston, South Carolina, the staff did look into what, um, websites were available to advertise for Lexington homes on a vacation rental basis. And we found of three or four different websites that the most, um, most homes available, um, was one website had seven homes that were listed. And two of those would be the ones, um, the Jacksons used, and then another was the Martin house, um, that the Brackens own. So there, uh, we, we do feel it's, it's really a very limited population that are currently renting their homes on a weekly basis or less, um, or at least advertising in that way. And, um, it is difficult for the staff to assess just based on that website advertisement from Charleston of four pages or eight pages really how Charleston does regulate those rentals. And if they are in residential zones or commercial zones or, you know, that sort of thing. So the staff would be interested to find out really how that is working in Charleston. Uh, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Likewise, I have two items of rebuttal. Uh, the first, we are, uh, displaying on the screen for you KRS100.211-2. Uh, this is the state law that governs the Planning Commission's role when the Urban County Council initiates a text amendment. Uh, it does require you to hold a public hearing within 60 days. And the portion underlined, uh, doesn't look like that allows the commission to send this forward without a recommendation. Uh, our reading of that ma- uh, tells us that, that you do need to take an action. Unless you're willing to postpone this until tomorrow, uh, believe, uh, today would be your last scheduled opportunity to, uh, to handle this proposed text amendment. The, uh, other item that we'd like to display, I think we did pass it out to you at the start of the hearing, we called it a rebuttal exhibit. Uh, Ms. Wade in her zoning research discovered two terms that do not appear in our zoning ordinance, uh, and that is time share and commercial dwelling unit. And we've attempted to kind of list those in hierarchy, if you will, of uses. Um, and I think basically the, the issue is, you know, whether or not those should be considered the same as a single family home under our dwelling unit definition. Thank you. So Mr. Salih, I wanna ask a question on KRS, what you had posted. Yes, sir. Th- there's, there's no such thing as do nothing. We have to take action today. Let's put it back up. Uh, I just want to reiterate that- Uh, I... You could postpone it to tomorrow. Well- I think that's your only other option. Uh, I'll let Mr. Day chair that one, but, um- I just want, I just want the commission to know that, you know, we do have to take action and, uh, we- Looks, looks like approval or disapproval and the reasons why. And staff has given us obviously a recommendation, but, uh, it can go either way. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, staff, do you have anything else rebuttal-wise? Okay. Mr. Hancock, uh, um, I remember your hand being raised up, so. Uh, Attorney Murphy has done a very nice job of presenting this. Uh, some things that he said were not, uh, correct, not true. 20%, uh, rental of this property is absolute hogwash. I'm, I live there. I know better than that. Uh, not possible. It, it's rented every weekend. Um, personal friends coming in on the particular tent that I showed you, uh, I spoke with some of the people over the fence, and, uh, they didn't even know Skip's name. Skip was there, sat in his truck, and did not attend his own friend's wedding reception. Here's what the announcement said, "Come as you like to eat, drink, and dance the night away." Now, that is party house. The, um, uh, comments, uh, in the letters to opposition, I was rather amused at that, because if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, if it's a hotel, it's a hotel, it's a hotel, it's a hotel. And the people that wrote letters said, "I, I don't wanna stay in another hotel." I mean, they even said those kinda words, "This is a hotel." Weekly rentals only, you've heard that said. Um, once again, uh, this gentleman right here made that phone call, inquired of, uh, of, uh, Mr. Jackson, uh, how he would rent it, and he said, "I'll rent it to you by the day, but it's gotta say by the week because that's in compliance with the law." Absolutely far from a neighborhood dispute. Uh, they may hate my guts at this point, but I'm certainly not in that situation. It's a matter of trying to do business and not being able to. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Hancock. Uh, Miss Bynagle, did you have any rebuttal? Just going down the list. Mr. Murphy, any rebuttal? Uh, we stand by what we say that, number one, it's rented on a weekly basis currently, as it is supposed to be under the ordinance and that, uh, uh, we are in compliance with all requirements and that the Jacksons use this house themselves. I mean, I- I guess if- if somebody's having a party there, it's, uh, probably difficult to go out and assess whether the Jacksons are doing it or whether a paid guest is doing it or whatever. But we have explained to you why they kept this house here, why they come back, why they use it so much. They have family all over the place here ri- right around Lexington, which uses it as well. It's not rented every week. Certainly, it's va- vacant most of the time. Uh, I was out there looking at it a couple times. Vacant- vacant as well here recently. So again, we- we don't feel that there's need to do a citywide ordinance, which has the impact you've heard from the other people to deal with this particular issue. We think mediation will do the job. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Jackson, do you have any rebuttal? Miss- Miss Jackson? I would like to say in regards to the wedding reception that the bride and groom are friends of ours. I don't know of many places that weddings that every single person at a wedding knows every other single person, but I will say to this, he came by the announcement because his wife trespassed onto our property and attended the event. Thank you, Miss Jackson. Any other rebuttal? Yes, sir. I came in late. I didn't sign speakers. Uh, I came in late. I didn't sign the speakers list, but I'm Jonathan Buckley. I'm a lawyer here. Yes, can I get your name and address please? Uh, Jonathan Buckley, and I live in Georgetown, Kentucky at 245 Victoria Way. And I'm a lawyer. I'm a friend of Tony's. And Tony was over for dinner, and my wife actually called, uh, the Jacksons, and this was in January. I don't remember the ac- actual date, but that's where the information came from that they, the contract had to say by the week, but they only paid by the day. And to me, on a personal basis, I mean, I've lived in the country, um, I guess ever since I came to Kentucky pretty much, and it- y'all have to decide whether or not this is gonna be, uh, the home of the horse or the horse capital of the world or whether everybody in the ag- in the agricultural district, certainly, can run their own hotel. I mean, to me it's- it's a pretty clear-cut issue and if the ordinances are sufficient today to prohibit it, then they need to be enforced. But if they aren't, then, uh, this ordinance improves the enforceability of, uh, actions to prevent party houses from ex- going on. Otherwise, I- I mean here, if you have a registration program or something with the state- with the city, the city can collect their taxes on- on this sort of thing, and they either have the permit or they don't have the permit to do it. I mean, it seems to me a very well-reasoned and- and, uh, uh, reasonable approach to, uh, what is clearly a poten- an existing problem and even a more potential problem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Miss Savage, you had something else? Just very quickly, because I do want to say that it does seem like this consternation between these two people, uh, are going to precipitate a text ordinance change. I don't know the lady's name here, but she just said that there were only seven homes, seven homes being advertised on the website for Lexington, and that's going to precipitate a text change that will penalize working poor and have a ripple effect across this city. I- I mean, I- I'm just shocked by this whole thing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this point, uh, we'll close, uh, this portion of the public hearing and, uh, turn it over to the commission for, uh, for discussion this time. Comments, Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I've got several. I'm struggling with this on a couple of fronts. Um, one, uh, this looks like a duck, smells like a duck. This looks an awful lot like a neighborhood di- dispute to me. Um, and in the current economy, I am very loathe to act in a situation that might affect somebody's ability to earn income. Um, I have to admit, I like the alternatives that Mr. Bracken brought forward a lot better than changing the text or doing the text amendment. Um, I think that Mr. Wharton's concerns were spot on, and, um, I don't really like the fact that we're being forced to act by the council by today. Um, I think there are plenty of questions about this that may need to be explored further. Um, so the fact that we have to act today, I- I find a little bit unsettling. So, um, with all due respect to the Fayette Alliance, a lot of the people on this board I know and respect immensely, um, but this seems to me to be, um, something where we need to enforce existing ordinances rather than create a new one. Ms. Bolen, you had something you wanted to add? Uh, I just wanted to say, it is not the council that is compelling action within 60 days. That's state law. So, what it amounts to is any time the council sees an issue that they think needs to be addressed by a text amendment, um, you know, they may themselves realize that there's more of a... that there may be a time issue that needs to be worked on. But under state law, if they ask for it to be initiated 'cause they perceived what they think may be a problem, they can't really extend that. That's set by state law. So it's not as if... I don't want people to get the impression that council has said, "We want this done and you have this long to do it." That's the only thing I wanted to address. Um, and as far as the recommendation, I mean, e- e- obviously, Mr. Salley's very correct. I did, however, talk to Dick Murphy this morning, and I didn't realize that there was not a possibility of advancing this without a recommendation, which is why he made that option possible. But as we have discussed, your recommendation, since it has to state the reasons for your recommendation, uh, you could advance it with disapproval for the reason that if there's a problem that needs to be addressed, it's going to take more time to determine an appropriate text amendment. So I don't think that, um, you can either approve it as it is, you can disapprove it 'cause you just don't think there's a problem here to address, or you can disapprove it with the reasons being you think more investigation needs to be done on it. So, i- i- which is, you know, kind of not shutting the door on it, but I, I think you do have a little bit more of an option than a yes or no by stating your reasons. Thank you, Ms. Bolen. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Ms. Richards. O... Excuse me. Yes. Go ahead. After having heard both, um, both sides of the argument today, uh, it... and I, I agree with, uh, Mr. Brewer that indeed it sounds like a, uh, a dispute between neighbors. And it seems to me that there ought to be a better way to solve this problem through other, other means than by changing a text amendment, which we've already heard a number of things come before us today that are unintended consequences. I find it hard to believe that there aren't a lot more unintended consequences involved in this. And it seems that, you know, we just keep picking away and hacking away at individual property rights and individual owners' rights. And I, I do appreciate the fact that there is a problem here, but I think this problem can certainly be solved in some other way. I cannot support this tax amendment. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Mr. Owens? Thank you. Um, y- you know, I'm kind of torn here. Um, I'm, I'm definitely, n- n- you know, would like to see and encourage tourism wherever possible. Um, I don't think the rental of houses is a problem. Um, I think there is somewhat of a personal squabble going here, and I think it's going back and forth. Um, uh, you know, I live in the area. I'm, I'm far enough away, I'm not affected by it, but I travel Ironworks Pike on a daily basis. I go by this property on a daily basis. Um, and what I see, uh, when, you know, one of the houses is occupied on the weekends, weekends only, and by that, uh, the, the house near the road has a circle type driveway. It has two gates. The gates are shut during the week. They're open on the weekend with people in the houses. Um, I don't see it being done on a weekly basis. And, uh, I don't know, maybe it was personal, but, um, three weekends ago, you know, there was not anybody there on Friday. There was people there on Saturday and Sunday, and they were gone Monday morning. Uh, to me, that's not a weekly rental. You know, i- this is, you know, to me, this has fallen more in the, in the realm of a bed and breakfast in, in which we have regulations for. You know, I don't think we want to, to start relaxing those regulations. Um, parties that, that, that go on, you know, t- three or four weekends ago, th- when I went by the house on Saturday afternoon, my wife and I was going to town, there was 30 people in the one house. Uh, I didn't count them, but, but, you know, I, I would, I'd be willing to bet you there's close to 30 people in that house. Uh, parties in th- that manner, um, receptions, whatever it's called, you know, now we're falling in the realm of a winery, and, and wineries are in AR zones. They've got regulations. Um, you know, an- and is this a broad stroke? I, I think it is. Um, however, I, I also see that this could happen anywhere throughout Lexington. Uh, and, and I don't think, uh, a rental of this sort 52 times a year would, would fare very well with, with, um, many of the neighbors that, that you, you know, it, it affects. Um, and, and I've gotta agree, Ironworks Pike, it's an 18-foot roadway. It's not made for that sort of commercial traffic. Um, I speed on it. I'm sorry, but I do. Um, uh, this, this property that, that, uh, you know, we've talked about is right on the crest of a hill. The driveway closest to the road, the house closest to the road is just past the crest of a hill. I, I, I've, I've been out there for 40 years, and I have seen numerous accidents cause the crest of that hill. ... uh, just, just travelin' down the road, not, not necessarily pullin' in and out, but just travelin' down the road. Um, so ye- I am torn. Um, but e- by the same token, I, I feel like there's some relief that needs to be given here somewhere. Uh, I, I feel like this is commercial use, and, uh, uh, for that reason, we need to give some relief for it. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Any other comments? Mr. Day? Mine are probably gonna go all over the page. But, uh, I do agree with Caroline. I think that there's some basic questions of rights, property rights, first of all, for, for not only the people that are here, but for everybody that's in Lexington. And as Mr. Owens, I lived here when this was a city and a county, and it woulda been a whole lot easier to handle a problem like this if we were in the same position. But we chose, '72, '73, whatever, to become an urban county government. So whatever decision we make here, whether it be on Ironworks Pike, way away from everybody, affects everybody in Lexington. And I can only agree with Ms. Savage saying that we put up in town with that in a small way if you're talkin' about noise and inconvenience on a weekly and daily basis. Randall and I live right fairly close to the Commonwealth Stadium. I'm gonna say during football season when the bands practice and so forth, we hear music and lights and noise every night of the week. But we live in Lexington and we know that that's part of what goes on. So I, I guess the thing that I can't buy is the fact that a little bit of noise or a tent, if it w- you know, just as I said of it, once a week for 52 weeks, that's probably small from what we hear in town. Um, you know, and, and also we did the comp plan, we promoted downtown, we promoted condos. And a lot of those people are standing there, whether you know it or not, rentin' those condos any way they can. Um, whether it be a daily base, a weekly base, a monthly base. And for us to come in here now and to say, "We're gonna make you all non-conforming." We're all gonna make you all basically all criminals. I, I just can't go with that. I'm sorry. Um, I've been down here, seen us do a lot of stuff for eight years, but to try to limit this, I think, and especially doing it on ... the only way you can enforce this is to turn your neighbor in. So unless we got enough badges to pass out to everybody, I just don't see how we can make it work. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Day. I guess, uh, I'll, I'll piggyback off your comment. I'm, I'm a little bit torn by this as well. Uh, like all text amendments, we do have to look at it globally and what, what affects those in the rural area. And I think most of us here want to be protective of the rural area. Also affects the, the, the inner city and, um, yes, we do live by the Common- Commonwealth Stadium. Yes, we get all the noise. He failed to mention we live within a mile of three hospitals. We hear the sirens quite often. So and, um, a- and again, it's as Ms. Richardson said, an unintended consequence. Um, you know, I know we, we struggle with this and, uh, uh, we'd like to see something that, uh, that would, that would address this in some fashion. Uh, I'm not so sure a text amendment, uh, of this nature at this point i- is, is the way we, we should go. So that's my comments. Any other... I'm sorry. Uh, yes, Mr. O- Mr. Cravens? Yeah, uh, I'm gonna come at this from a, I guess a lot of what you said, Mr. Chairman. Um, it just looks like special legislation to me, just for one event. I mean, we, we've been tolerant to hear, uh, this neighborhood dispute, which I think we should've maybe kept our comments more on whether this is good for, uh, the text amendment zoning or whatever. But, uh, a- and I think there are police powers that can handle, uh, disruptions in neighborhoods and, and things like that. Uh, I know even, even where I live, my neighbors decided he didn't wanna mow the rest of his backyard. He mows half of it. And, um, so, you know, there's probably some ordinance I could call and have him mow, you know, get code enforcement out there, make him mow the rest of it. But, um, I, I just think it's, it's too, it's too narrow. Uh, uh, it hurts. We, we don't know what it's gonna do to, uh, the rental market, uh, all the people that live in weekly rentals. Uh, it's another property right that we're giving up and, um, our zoning ordinance is, i- is so full of things now that it's hard to do anything. And, um, so I, I think to add this to the zoning ordinance is a mistake, and I would like, i- if it seems to be a problem, maybe there's another way to handle it. I think there were some good ideas out here on how it might be handled. But, uh, I'm not gonna support it. Miss Copeland? This is an old farm girl, had cattle, horses, um, crops, et cetera. And you cannot risk your livelihood with some tourist or somebody else hopping the fence and destroying your property. This is altogether different from Charleston. I am in deep empathy for anybody who lives next, who has a crop, whether it's four-legged or vegetarian, uh, truck farms, whatever. Imagine somebody going through a pumpkin field with this kind of chaos going next door. Uh, your pumpkins wouldn't last very long if you had the right kinda college party. ... uh, I think i- it needs help. I don't think this text amendment is the way to go, but I think there's a real problem if we are going to support the agricultural community in, in, uh, Bay County. Another question is, does... do these two properties get subsidized with agricultural taxation zoning? In other words, are they in an agricultural zone where they get subsidies for being agricultural? If so, isn't it obvious that we have a commercial operation in an agricultural zone when you're supposed to be agricultural? That's my comments. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Ms. Woodman? Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I, I will piggyback on what Ms. Copeland said. I concur with her. I think there's property rights on both sides of the fence, and, um, I think, um, uh, i- it's a difficult situation, but it seems to me like we have a, a commercial, uh, property existing in an ag zone, and, uh, I don't know what the solution is to it, but I can understand, uh, Mr. Hancock's concern with his, um, with his business. He has a business also. And I'm not sure that the text amend- amendment does that. I did like the comments about licensing. I think that that might be something that could be pursued. But, but I think, um, uh, that, again, property rights on both sides of the fence, and if this is going to persist, I think there has to... been understanding with the property owners, uh, that they, um, they have to have respect for what's going on on the other side of the fence. Thank you, Ms. Woodman. Any other comments? Okay. Is anyone prepared to, uh, make a motion? Ms. Phillips? Oh, I'm sorry. You were shaking your head. Uh, okay. Yeah. Um, I would like to move that we, uh, disapprove the recommendation, uh, that the text amendment has presented, um, because I believe that we do need more time to evaluate this. I'm not sure that the zoning ordinance is the appropriate place to make this kind of adjustment. I don't believe it is exclusively a land use issue, and, uh, that's what our zoning ordinance is intended to do. Um, and I would like to, um, have this commission to continue to discuss these issues. And, uh, so therefore, I would like to disapprove it today, but keep it on the table so that we can make adjustments. And with respect to Mr. Hancock's issue, I think that we have, um, a pretty good body of nuisance ordinances on the books, and I would like to see those ordinances enforced. I think we might have a clarification to your motion. Ms. Foley? Well, I think the only thing we wanted to make sure was clear is that this text amendment as it is will have to go to council with your recommendation of disapproval, and the reasons therefor. However, as the planning commission, as a separate issue, you can certainly request that your staff continue to look into these issues or something along those lines as kind of a parallel thing. But we just wanted to make it clear that this can't remain with the planning commission. It will go forward. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second, uh, to, uh, disapprove for the reasons provided by Ms. Phillips. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." All opposed, please say, "No." We have one no. Mr., Mr. Owens. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I make one last ? Um, when we get to... We have an audience item at some point, or if, if you don't mind sticking around, we just have a few more minutes to wrap up our business here. Okay? Uh, I'll request a dissent then. Go ahead, Mr.- I can't stick around almost two hours, but- Well, well, w- we're almost done. ... if this, if this is colored by the people of the city, then let's make this only for agricultural development. I mean, I have no relief. I... Where, who can I call? Who can I call? We have- Well, I, you know- ... people you can call? ... well, well, let's, let's, let's... We have business to conduct here and, you know, we'll finish our business here and then we'll go on. Okay. Um, now, I believe that concludes our, our zoning items. Um, I guess at this time, um, Commission, do you have any items? Commission members? I believe staff has an item or two. Mr. King? Mr. Chairman, just wanted to remind the commission members of your work session next week, um, and also remind you, for the work session, we are going to have the joint session between the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council Planning Committee next week at 11:30. We'll meet first in the, uh, library basement and then continue on. And we would love to get a headcount, because we're trying to get some food. And as you know, budgets are tight, and we don't want to, uh, get more than we need to. So donut, donuts wouldn't carry us through, right? What's that? I said, "Donuts wouldn't carry us through, right?" That's right. Okay. Uh, I hope, uh... Just to, uh, add to Mr. King's comment, I hope as many of us are able to attend next week's session. Uh, I hope you can, and hopefully, we'll be, uh, productive. Uh, something that, uh, planning committee, Council Planning Committee has been wanting to meet with us, uh, for quite some time, so, uh, we're looking forward to it. Okay. Um, I guess, Mr. Hancock, you... Now you have an opportunity for an audience item. If, if your reason for disapproval is this, uh, is that it may affect people in the city, the Martin House, et cetera, then what I would request that you do is, this has taken a long time, eight months to get to this point. I would request that you, uh, narrow the scope of this to agricultural zoning only so that we don't have hotels sitting next to, to farms. Uh, the pumpkin patch example is, is right on the money. Horses are more dangerous than pumpkins. And, uh, and I'm not sure what to do from here, but I would ask that you, that you put that back on your docket as a, as a text amendment for the agricultural zone. Well, I think, um, I guess legal will have to correct me if I'm wrong, we've actually... Our action goes back to council. Council with us take, take the appropriate action, which I guess that would be his first opportunity to, uh, to further discuss that. I guess as far as this body, uh, we've already provided our recommendation, correct? That's correct. Thank you. Um, uh, I mean, council will now make the next decision on this particular text amendment. Okay, thank you. Um, they might put it... Council, go ahead. We just say the council also has many options since it is their legislation that was initiated. They could just deal with it as is, they could refer it back to one of their committees for further discussion. So, uh, I'd advise anyone who's interested in this issue to continue the, the progress of this, uh, legislation it go, as it goes back to council. Thank you, Mr. King. Okay. Can I add one more thing on, on behalf... I'm sorry. We do operate a farm. We have horses there, and this is a neighborhood dispute. If he wants to talk about people crossing the line, he ran his cattle in their fields and left dead ca- a- animal carcasses- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Jackson. ... in our eyes. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm sorry. Geez. Okay, is there any other business for the commission? Is there, is there a motion for adjournment? So moved. All right. Second? All right, we're adjourned.